I Feel Good

Didn't watch the debate last night, so didn't waste 90 minutes of my remaining lifespan. 

Our Schizoid History-I

 Someday I may write more on this, but here's a placeholder: Throughout our history white America has had a schizoid attitude towards slavery, possibly an attitude also found in England and elsewhere.

• on the one hand slavery is bad, the worst thing possible.  It's what Americans feared, or at least said they feared from British rule.  You can see it in the pamphlets leading up to the Revolution, and you can see it in our national anthem.  (Britain's "Rule Britannia" also claims "Britons will never be slaves" in its second line.)
• on the other hand, of course, slavery is legal in some places until 1865.

Fixing the Court

 A lot of discussion among Democrats over what to do about a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority.

I'd suggest one strategy not much discussed, which assumes Biden/Harris win and the Democrats gain a Senate majority:

• end the filibuster in the Senate (might be problematic, given their moderates who might be reluctant).
• spend time fixing the vulnerabilities in important legislation, like ACA and Clean Air, etc. 

My theory is this: over the last 4 years and more, conservatives have filed enough court cases and the Trump administration has changed enough administrative rules that good lawyers can identify the weak points.  Rather than rely on defending rules in the court, preempt the challenges by fixing them.  If the challenge is that the agency, EPA, etc., has exceeded its authority under the law, change the law to provide the authority.  If the challenge is that Congress has exceeded its authority under the Constitution, change the law to rest on a firmer basis.

What's iffy about this strategy is, of course: Roe v Wade. Although polls suggest a majority support its general outline, trying to legislate it would be like gun control.  The fierce minority would prevail over the majority.  I could suggest a compromise which appears reasonable to me, but it's a matter of principle for the opponents.  What would my hopeless compromise be?  Clinton used to say "legal, safe, and rare".  I'd think a compromise which added "early" to the formula should work, except it won't. If you had taxpayer funded abortions in the first trimester with over-the-counter of the "day-after" pill , then court-approved abortions for the next two with the basis being restricted (health and safety, rape, unusual circumstances), perhaps with a prescribed role for a voice for an advocate for the fetus, and taxpayer funding of pre-natal care for those who lose their case for abortion.

The details don't matter, because for people on both sides it's too basic an issue of rights to agree to a compromise.

My Dreams of a Self-Driving Car

 I've posted before about my hopes for a self-driving car, something which compensate for my declining physical abilities as I age. I didn't want to see the headline on this piece.

I repeat my previous suggestion of using an approach of developing a car which can memorize routes, given that many people like me do most of their driving over a limited selection of routes. Apparently from the article that's not the way companies are going--their loss.

On a personal note, I just completed my 3-year lease of a Prius with extensive safety features which saved me two or three times from likely accidents,

Do People Follow Instructions?

 Ever since I started with ASCS in its Directives Branch I've been interested in that question.  This election it is important because lots of voters will be voting by mail for the first time, and lots of county clerks will have to compose instructions and see their voters try and sometimes fail to follow them.

Anyone remember the "butterfly ballot" in Florida in 2000? I think the answer to the question is: "sometimes".  But it's often a problem to convey information from one mind to another, and often people doing something new try to figure it out themselves, only checking the manual when they screw up. 

The Power of the Past

This is a tweet from today. 

You honestly have to admire the confidence of Harvard business school grad students pic.twitter.com/HwfzTs0HpC

— Ronan (@rfitz77) September 25, 2020

 The Harvard business school students misjudged the power of the past.  IMHO the established retailers had power because they'd accumulated capital, both financial and real capital, plus the network capital of networks of suppliers and customers.  But while this present capital was enabling, it was also constricting.  In a situation where openness to the new and learning from experience was all-important, the pathways laid down in the past were no longer adequate; they were misleading.  It's called the "Innovator's Dilemma". 

The Right Question for President Trump

Lots of stuff going around on whether the losers will accept the results of the fall election.  I don't think the question to the president yesterday was well-phrased.  I think the right question for the president is whether he has designated his transition team. (He has, actually, designated Chris Liddell as you can see if you spend some time googling. But my real question is: does he know this, or has Meadows made the designation without telling Trump for fear he'll erupt. Based on everything which has come out about how the administration operates, I suspect that his staff keeps lots of stuff from him.)

[Updated: Politico just put out this piece on Liddell's work.]

The Hullabaloo Over SCOTUS

 Back in the 1960's the right was all "Impeach Earl Warren".  Part of the outrage as I remember it was over decisions on crime, part was one person, one vote, and a good part was forbidding the "Lord's Prayer" in schools. There were divisions on the Court, but they tended to be cross-cutting: Justice Black was strict constructionist on First Amendment rights, William Douglas was the epitome of the "living constitution", neither of which fit neatly into the divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

President Nixon started the process of replacing Warren (following a filibuster of Johnson's nominee for Chief of Abe Fortas) and converting SCOTUS to a Republican dominated branch of government.  Since then, in the 52 years, Republican presidents have named 14 justices, Democrats 4.  If things had worked fairly according to the amount of time each party had the presidency, the Dems would have had 7, and the Reps 11. 

Regardless, while there have been ups and downs and decisions I dislike, the country has survived.  We've made significant advances in social areas, and Roe v Wade has survived. 

I predict however the current episode works out, someone looking back 25 years from now will not see a major turning point in legal history with the filling of the current vacancy.  In the long run, the court follows the election returns and the direction of the country. 

The Banality of Evil--Soviet Style

 Just finished David Remnick's"Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Union."  

It concludes with the trial of the survivors of the plotters of the coup which tried to oust Gorbachev and which was thwarted by Yeltsin and the Moscow people. The trial, plus the access to the archives which the prosecutors had, showed the plotters to be rather banal.  

I suspect this is often the case in history.  If you were the fly on the wall getting a real time read on the deliberations and decision making you'd be amazed at how haphazard and ordinary the proceedings were. This conviction of mine is related to my belief in "Murphy's Law". 

SBA Small Business Subcontracting

 SBA's Inspector General did a report, including this:

The audit also found a glitch in reporting large businesses working for small businesses on procurements. The report said there are no requirements or mechanisms to measure small business awards that are subcontracted to large businesses.

It's an instance ofthe "golden rule" in government--those who have the gold, rule.  Over the years I've become convinced that, at least in the American system of government, the elite, the wealthy, can and do over time figure out how to evade and/or take advantage of well-intentioned rules and programs.  This is an example:

 SBA is required by law to designate "small businesses" owned by women, minorities, and those with disabilities, and agencies are required to give preference in contracting to these small businesses.  So when a project is big, the small business bids and then subcontracts the work out to the big business.  That happened on several IT projects I was involved with during my career.  That's a legal way to take advantage of the rules.  Alaskan tribal enterprises are one category of such owners.

I'm not sure there's a solution. Part of the problem is that "do-gooders" (like me) get aroused around an issue and get enough power to pass a law/put a program in place, but we assume the law will be self-executing, will be implemented as intended, and other parties won't have the brains and money and incentive to act to manipulate the situation. 

SCOTUS and the Albright Rule

In a NSC discussion over whether and how to intervene in the Balkans during the Clinton administration Madeliene Albright said something like: "what are your great armed forces if you never use them"?  I'll transmute that into a rule, named after her:

"if you have the power, use it".

That rule may be applying in the case of the Supreme Court.  Leader McConnell had the power to freeze Obama's nomination of Judge Garland to the Court.  President Trump has the power to nominate a young conservative woman to the Court.  The Republicans may, or may not, have the power to confirm her.  

After the election the Democrats may or may not have the power to expand the Supreme Court to allow a President Biden to nominate a young liberal black woman and others to the Court and the Senate to confirm them.

It's a game of tit for tat (I initially spelled "tick for tack") with no logical ending except greater polarization.  

Personally I would oppose the steps, but I think analytically down the road some sort of new compromise would evolve.  It's the same sort of dynamic which has created a bipartisan caucus in the House of Representative pushing a compromise pandemic bill. They may fail; the caucus may split; but at some point the center will reassert itself.   

RBG RIP

 My wife and I were fans of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at least in the sense we saw the documentary and then the biipic made of her life.  She preceded me at Cornell by a few years, so I had that thread connecting me to her.

As liberal Democrats we feel badly; as humans we mourn her exemplary life.

What happens with the Court and the 2020 election now?  Lots of speculation, most of which will be wrong.

CFAP II Coming, and Here

 From Progressive Farmer, a report from Trump's rally saying that CFAP II will be announced next week at $13 billion.

Just went to Facebook FSA employees group and found this was announced.  Don't know why the amount went up $1 billion in a day.

Divisions Among Black Farmer Organizations

 I have a Google Alert set up for "black farmers", dating back to the Pigford days. Today it showed two hits:

"National Black Farmers Association Announces Boycott of John Deere"

"Deere forms new coalition to assist Black farmers with property rights"

No text for either, so I'm left guessing at the story behind the scenes. 

I'll take this opportunity to note that the NBFA (headed by John Boyd) has seemed to be a lot more active in recent months than they were for a while.  

Crop Insurance Fraud

 Farm Journal's Agweb runs a piece on a big, perhaps the biggest, crop  insurance fraud. It goes back over a decade, and I didn't notice a current hook for telling the story now, but it is a big story.  

RMA has a page listing crop insurance fraud cases.

1970's Oil Shock

Noah Smith has a piece in Bloomberg, describing the 1970's rise in oil prices and attributing several structural changes in the economy to that cause.   This shows gas prices over the last 100 years.  In 1968 when I first began driving as a civilian prices were $.34 a gallon.  Sometimes you had gas price wars, which would drive the prices even lower. Stations might offer premiums, like steak knives, for filling a tank. (Back in the day, banks used to offer premiums to open savings accounts, since interest rates were capped--but that's another subject.) We're still using a couple knives I got back then.

By 1980 the prices had risen to $1.19--tripling in price. That's after embargoes and long gas lines as people panicked (rather like the toilet paper shortages this spring). 

Evaluation of MFP

 NYTimes has a piece tied to GAO's assessment of MFP in a report Monday.  The criticisms seem to focus on higher payments for Southern producers and for big producers.  

I'd note that the WTO just issued an opinion that Trump's tariffs on China were illegal. MFP was intended to counter the adverse effects of the Chinese tariffs which responded to Trump's tariffs.

Will I Accept a Trump Victory?

 There's some worrying that liberals would not accept another Trump victory.  I can only speak for myself, a diehard Democrat.

If a "Trump victory" means an outcome like 2016--a loss in the popular vote but a clear plurality in one or more states sufficient to mean an electoral college victory--yes, I'll "accept" it.  By which I mean I'll recognize him as the person elected to be president according to our constitution. It doesn't mean I won't be as active, or more active, in opposition as I have been.

If the election goes to Congress, I'm not giving a promise of acceptance, although to the extent I understand the 1876 resolution I'd likely acceptance such an outcome in 2020.

The Last Mile Problem for US Government

 I've used the idea of a "last mile" problem before, but didn't really describe it.  The "last mile" in the internet is linking a home to the internet.  It's relatively easy to run fiber cable around the land.  It's like our blood--the veins and arteries are easy, but the capillaries are where it gets complicated.  In my mind the American federal government has such a problem--it can't connect reliably with all its citizens in all aspects of society.

I just noticed another instance: Treasury Department has 9 million checks it hasn't gotten to citizens.

The problem is more than 9 million--these are people who are part of the economy--IRS knows who they are, as opposed to people who are "off the grid" entitely.

Gates on Foreign Policy

 Reading Robert Gates: Exercise of Power, American Failures, Success, and a New Path Forward in the Post-Cold War World.

This Post review is pretty good.  Gates applauds Nixon and Reagan as having foreign policy agendas on entering office, and working effectively to implement them. He likes George HW Bush's response to the end of the Cold War, but criticizes Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Trump. He offers overviews of our history in dealing with various foreign affairs issues over the last 50 years, during much of which he was either at CIA, NSC, or DOD. Then he offers suggestions for better management.

His three big things are:

•  reviving, in my eyes, the Weinberger/Powell criteria for military engagement
• arguing for building up our non-military instruments of foreign policy--State, foreign aid, sanctions,education, etc.
• arguing for coordinated use of foreign policy instruments--he cites GWBush's Pepfar (aid to Africa for AIDS) as a model.

Two thoughts in response:

• for any organization there's a trade-off between specialization and coordination of effort. We had that in USDA, still do, and I don't think anyone has really solved the problem.  The National Security Council was supposed to be the solution originally, but Gates doesn't think much of  its modern incartnation.
• Gates in a sense is arguing for "defunding the military" as progressives are arguing for "defunding the police." In both cases the analysis is that using force is counter-productive and/or ineffective, and using available alternatives to force would work better. (This is my take, definitely not his.)

Just a note from history--in the1950's the UN was the hope of the left.  While Gates doesn't ignore the UN, it's obvious from his discussion how far its stature has fallen.

Ethnic Tensions

 Watched the older Ben Affleck movie, "The Town", last night.  A few subtle reminders of the group/ethnic tensions which were once a big feature of Boston life.  

Tribalism is everywhere humans are.  

9/11 is a good day to remember that. 

Sad Words on Records Management

 Federal Computer Week has a long discussion of the challenges records management faces in the current environment:“I love my records management staff,” one said. “They’re fantastic. But they are not database people. They are not technologists.”

I think the bottom line is that "records management" is not a sexy occupation, which means it can descend into a vicious circle: because it's not sexy it doesn't attract the best employees or employees who have experience in new processes and technology, management can ignore it for more crucial issues, employees can ignore records management problems and fail to understand the logic of the rules, and records management issues are ignored in developing new systems. Back in the day, my early days at ASCS, our business processes were pretty much standard across the country: electric typewriters and carbon paper, and information moved on mail carts and clearance folders.  No more.

That explains both Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as well as various figures in the White House under the current administration.

The Lessons of Fairfax Scools

 As I understand it, the Fairfax school system had problems with remote learning back in the spring for two reasons--using older software (Blackboard, I believe) and running it on their own server instead of in the cloud.  The outcome was initially a fiasco, as the system couldn't handle the big load.

This problem, and my experience, suggests that the educators advising the Fairfax County School Board weren't paying enough attention to their infrastructure, likely because they regarded it as a distraction from the real job of educating students and running the system. 

As I used to say: "maintenance has no sex appeal".

Vertical Farming's Unnoted Advantage?

I'm guessing maybe vertical farming has an advantage I've not considered in the past.  I've mostly been skeptical of it and still am.  But...

One of the problems of growing produce is labor.  While farm labor isn't well paid, the harvesting of vegetables typically requires hand labor, which I think usually turns into seasonal labor (depending on the crop).  But I saw the other day a picture of a worker in a vertical farm growing lettuce.  He was wearing a white uniform, and standing by a tray of lettuce at shoulder height. I don't know whether it's standard for vertical farms to have their growing trays on a rotating drive arrangement, so that the work is always at eye level, but it makes sense they would.  It's a slight additional expense and a complication for maintenance but still.

So consider the labor advantages of such a system:

• no back-breaking labor, no bad weather of heat or rain, etc., clean.
• the job is not seasonal, it's year round, meaning the workers can be permanent.
• while the vertical farming factory is located in or near a city, with its higher living costs, the much bigger labor pool and the much better working conditions might well counterbalance the costs.

Just some guesses, but I'll be interested to see if I'm right or wrong.

Time for Higher Real Estate Tax Rates

 Megan McArdle and this Post analysis both describe a booming real estate market in the suburbs, as the "professional" (AKA "upper middle class") take advantage of cheap money and flee the crowded cities. I can see that in my own neighborhood: in the last year or so there have been several townhouses change hands in my cluster.  These would likely be entry-level houses, currently selling in the $350K range.  By the old standards of 2.5 times yearly income that means household income of $140K--not likely. A two income family would, I'd assume, come close to $90-100 K (say two school teachers)

IMO the country needs some way to counter such trends. We don't need McMansions, we don't need everyone having their own private bathroom, we don't need 2.4 rooms per person,  2,700 square feet in a house, much less more than that.  I write this knowing my wife and I occupy a house with 2 baths, 2 half baths.  But it's less than 1500 square feet.  I didn't need that big of a house when I bought; we don't use the whole house now.

When I bought I found the biggest house I thought I could afford because I figured it was a good investment. I assume that parents would buy the biggest house they can afford in the best school district they can find for similar reasons: their kids are good investments; their house is a good investment, or so they think.

The only current way of countering ever more investment in housing is real estate taxes. 

A Vet, But No Hero

 Our illustrious president is alleged to have called people who served in the military "losers", etc.  It seems consistent with his public persona, although the Atlantic article didn't have named sources.

In reaction, some are calling military personnel "heroes".

I take exception: I'm a vet, but no damned hero.  I was drafted, I went, I served, I got out very happily--end of story for me.

Flak on Reopening USDA DC

USDA's DC area offices are working towards reopening, but catching flak from the employees according to this report.

Update on EU Agricultural Programs

 Been a long time since I posted on this subject. Here's a recent release--the study is critical of the EU programs:

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU's largest budget item, averaging EUR 54 billion annually. It is well known that over 80% of payments are going to only 20% of farmers, but to what extent these payments support policy goals is poorly understood, due to a lack of transparency and complex reporting.

"Our analysis shows that at least €24 billion per year goes to income support in the richest regions, while the poorest regions with the most farm jobs are being left further behind.

Rebanks and the American System--Corn Laws Redux

 James Rebanks had a best-selling book back in 2015--The Shepherd's Life, a memoir of raising sheep in northwestern England.  More recently, as described in his Twitter account, he's diversified his operation with pigs and cows, and put more emphasis on diversified farming and conservation.  And he has a new book, English Pastoral (currently only on sale in England).

It took me a little while, but my new book is now on sale (for pre orders)

It is about everything I care about and love and I hope you like it pic.twitter.com/kpg2u7JmZH

— James Rebanks (@herdyshepherd1) May 28, 2020

This week BBC America had a clip of him and his wife as they argued against the "American System" Their concern was the negotiations between the UK government and US over trade terms, as the UK leaves the EU.  If there are no trade barriers/tariffs on agricultural trade, they fear that UK agriculture will be overwhelmed.  (I sense a reprise of the repeal of the Corn Laws back in 1846.)  

Rebanks outlines the case for a protectionist stance towards agriculture in this March article. And it's based on his book tour (NYTimes piece) of Kentucky when selling his first book.

Am I Getting Conservative?

 I sometimes wonder.  It's too bad we didn't have blogs in the 60's and 70's so I could trace the changes in my opinions over the years.  As far as today's politicians go, I generally support the Klobuchars and Bidens of the world. 

I likely am more internationalist/globalist than they.  I remember the heyday of the UN, when it was still viewed by some as essential to world peace.  And I remember the decolonialization movement and our concern over getting adequate foreign aid to the third world.  Liberals mostly seem to have abandoned that focus, but the influence of my ancestral religion still runs strong--the "Great Mission" was to convert the world.

On some current issues:

• I believe in much higher taxes on everyone.  I still retain the bias of JKGalbraith's "The Affluent Society", which argued we underfunded public amenities in favor of private extravagance.  There's no need for 2-4,000 square foot homes. 
• I don't believe in reparations--I do believe in experimenting with social programs, including dispersed public housing (down with NIMBYs) and cash transfer programs. 
• I don't believe in defunding policy, though I would favor more social services, more rehabilitation programs in prison.
• I think there are many more important things people could focus on rather than taking down monuments and renaming landmarks, but different strokes as we used to say in the 60's.
• I do believe in nationalizing a lot of statistics and making reporting mandatory--crime and health come to mind. 

Violence

 Up to now I've been optimistic on the state of the nation's politics, saying today isn't as bad as many fear.

I may be in the process of changing my mind.  I remember the conflicts in the 60's and 70's between the Weathermen and the Black Panthers and the hard hats of some unions. There was violence then, lots of bombs.  But I don't remember the group conflicts then.  The groups on the left were anti-establishment, and often still adhered to the ethic of nonviolence--although a few were killed, the bombings weren't intended to kill. The Black Panthers and police/law enforcement had violent clashes in which people died.  But except for union hard hats disrupting anti-war demonstrations there was little left-right violence with the police caught in the middle.  

That seems to be what's changing.  And what's dangerous is the likelihood of escalation--paint guns and rocks and fists can move to knives and guns, first displayed, then used.  That sort of dynamic is inherent in people, and it's dangerous.

I'm worried.

No Longer the Party of Limited Government?

From Reason.com:

So under Trump's signature, before any true crisis hit, the annual price tag of government went up by $937 billion in less than four years—more than the $870 billion price hike Obama produced in an eight-year span that included a massive federal response to a financial meltdown.

The Slow Progress of Videophone/Videoconferencing

 I'm not sure whether "videophones" is a comprehensive enough term but I'll go with it. I'm referring to the idea of being able to see the person with whom you are talking over long distance.  ("Long distance" for the young means the rest of the US beyond roughly 20-40 miles from your position which incurred a charge per minute,)

I vaguely remember participating in a test in ASCS in the 1970's--I think an innovative deputy administrator for management sprang for it.  It didn't work--too expensive, too little advantage.  Again in the 1980's I think there was a trial, maybe five or six managers in DC and Kansas City had special phones with the idea it would replace our trips back and forth.  It didn't work--too new, too much of a change, too awkward. Again the 1990's there was a trial, but this time it was televised conference calls, with a TV camera covering a conference table with maybe 10-12 seats. Again this was for DC-KCMO conferencing.  It worked better, although the facility had to be reserved at each end.  It was competing against email by this time, not something that the 1970's trial had to face.  I don't remember whether it was still in operation at the time I left.

Up to this point the process was using special phone/camera equipment--really "videophones".  I don't know for sure whether the 1990s were using the internet to communicate, likely not. Fast forward through the 2000's and the development of Skype until you reach 2020 and the wide use of Zoom, and competing services. 

Apparently it works now because almost everyone has the equipment--computer/smartphone with camera and broadband access--to participate. So there's not much hassle to setting up a call. And with the pandemic video conferencing becomes the only way to go.  Email with cc's to everyone works in some situations, but when you want back and forth conversations among a group, conferencing is the only way.  

Social Capital Equals the Dead Weight of the Past?

 In this century the term "social capital" has become popular.  (For some reason I can't embed the ngram viewer from Google, so you'll just have to take my word for it.)

The idea is that people accumulate relationships and knowledge which improve the functioning of society.  It's a positive term.  

The other side of the coin is seeing much the same phenomena as "the dead weight of the past", as Marx did in this quote. Or, as Lincoln wrote: " 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."

One example from my lifetime: Germany and Japan recovered relatively quickly from the destruction of WWII partly because they had social captial.  Their people had knowledge, and they had institutions which could operate.  In the last century that was often compared with the situation in developing countries, where the people lacked the knowledge and the institutions.

However I can look at the other side of the same example: much of the social capital of pre-WWII Japan and Germany was useless or dangerous in the post-war situation.  They had to discard some and keep and exploit other aspects.

I think we're finding the same thing as we exploit algorithms in automation--the algorithms are based on past experience, so they reflect the past, both good and bad.  

Interesting FSA Notice For Farmers.gov Positions

 Some 35 years ago ASCS advertised 2-year positions in DC called "SCOAPers".  IIRC the acronym stood for "state and county office automation project".  Leroy Mitchell was, I think the Kansas City Management Office person who pushed it.  He was recognizing that the job of converting our manual and batch processing operations in the field to applications running on our new IBM System/36s couldn't be handled by the personnel on hand in DC. He had also been very impressed by the program assistants KCMO had worked with in the guinea pig counties (first one county--IIRC Osage Kansas, and then a group of 6 or so counties.

The DC office had big problems in hiring field people the way we had done in the past--i.e., hiring county executive directors for permanent positions.  Typically they'd get a grade increase to GS-11 or 12, with the possibility of getting to GS-13. In the old days that may have been a good enough carrot for an ambitious type, but as DC area housing prices soared in the 70's and early 80's due to inflation and a housing boom, it just didn't work.

Another problem, which I don't think most of us realized, was CED's could be at a loss in trying to handle automation.  A lot, most IMHO, were used to being the public face of the county office, relying on their clerks/program assistants to handle the nuts and bolts, the paperwork.

So the bosses worked out a deal with the Civil Service Commission and USDA's Office of Personnel to offer 2-year positions to program assistants and CED's to work on the automation from the DC side. The key to the deal was that they would technically still be county employees, not federal, so they didn't count against federal personnel ceilings. 

The program turned out to be key in changing the ASCS DC workforce from almost male-only.  In the end many of the SCOAPers stayed in DC, converting to GS status and advancing up the ladder to management.  There was another batch in 1987-8.

It sounds to me as if FSA is taking a similar approach to staff the farmers.gov initiative, as outlined in this notice.  Good luck to them. 

I note some differences:  it's a 2-year minimum with possible extensions up to 5 year max. And there's the possibility of relocation allowances. Despite the innovation of locality differences in pay, I suspect the problem of attracting field employees to DC remains, possibly not improving any since 1997. I also suspect management has underestimated the problems of implementing the farmers.gov.  

Chill: My Words for the Country

 I'm reminded of Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny" which I read multiple times in youth.  There was a couplet in it which I remember, notable because I don't remember much poetry.:

When in trouble or in doubt

Run in circles,

Scream and shout.

IIRC it was being applied to the USNavy, as their response to problems, perhaps by Lt. Keefer, but I may be wrong.

Anyhow it's a corollary of the Harshaw Rule--trouble and doubt occurs often when you're doing things for the first time, at least the first time within living memory.  That's what we as a world and a nation are doing now with covid-19.  It's new enough we have no assurance in what we're doing, so we get uptight and snap and fight.

Someone today noted that we have a huge number of different school systems, private, public, parochial, in different jurisdictions, all of which are using different approaches to handling schooling for the fall. Different because we don't know what are "best practices" for sure.

Lots of recriminations among the politicians about whose positions in the first quarter of the year were correct. I'm firm in my belief that the president screwed up, and continues to screw up the response. But, it's true enough we're all screwing up because we don't know now what we'll know in a year from now.  

So I think people should chill, at least a bit, and put more emphasis on who's learned what and what process will be most enlightening and educational. 

Why I, a Liberal, Worry About the Federal Debt

 Most liberals these days don't worry about the debt.  Even Kevin Drum, whose view I mostly follow, is rather blase about it.  So why do I worry?

One word: history.

I've lived throughabout a third of the life of the nation, which included some big increases in the debt, some severe inflation, and lots of changes.  Lessons I've learned:

• nothing lasts forever--the fact that inflation has been low, contrary to expectations of economists and conservative debt hawks, for many years doesn't mean it will always be low.
• inflation causes problems--it works for those with real assets, like homeowners, but not for people like those receiving aid from the government. 
• rising inflation rates leads to rising interest rates, which can rapidly eat up all flexibility in government budgets.  (See Clinton--whose 1992 program was killed by the bond traders.)

If we go on adding debt, it's like living at the foot of a mountain.  It snows on top of the mountain and the drifts build up.  But everyone says it's okay, it's been years since the last avalanche. So people build more houses at the foot of the mountain, and each time it snows there's no avalanche.  Comes the day when there is an avalanche and all the houses are wiped away.

Bottom line, I remember the 1950's, and 1960's when the Dem economists thought they had things figured and inflation was low enough.  Then Vietnam war heated up, debt increased, and money got tight.  We struggled through years of fighting inflation.  LBJ's Great Society dreams were sacrificed as a result.

I Don't Understand the Iowa Governor

 From the Gazette:

Gov. Kim Reynolds on Sunday requested an expedited federal disaster declaration to aid Iowa counties ravaged by last week’s a derecho that caused damage preliminarily estimated at nearly $4 billion — including $3.77 billion in crop damage in 36 counties.

What I don't understand is the crop damage request--given the changes in crop insurance and disaster programs in the 1990's I don't think there's any basis for it; at least there's no program under which USDA could make the money available.   

Ducks Pick Ducks

Rand did a big study of how the different US armed forces recruit and promote their general officers, particularly what are the features of each one's culture.  I skimmed it, finding it interesting, with some resonance with the differences in the cultures of the different USDA agencies I once knew.  

I hadn't run across the saying in the title before, but it makes sense.  It explains a lot of patterns in the bureaucracy.  A paragraph:

 “Ducks pick ducks.” We were unable to obtain data on exact compositions and backgrounds of promotion board members in order to compare them with the backgrounds of the candidates they ultimately chose for promotion. But we heard repeatedly from interviewees in each service that there is a tendency for promotion boards to select officers whose career experiences are comparable to their own, and for senior officers to select officers with backgrounds similar to theirs for aide jobs, positions that serve as a signal of O-7 potential to board members and can provide access to powerful networks of G/FOs. We also observed this trend in the SLSE. The notion of “ducks picking ducks” serves to cyclically reinforce service culture by perpetuating the selection of officers who similarly reflect service goals and preferences. As far back as World War II, Morris Janowitz wrote about the propensity of senior military leaders to fill their staff roles (e.g., military assistant or executive officer) with people who could “speak the same language.”582 However, this observation does not mean that the officers who are selected for promotion by similar, more senior officers are necessarily less qualified; it is possible that the “ducks pick ducks” tendency in some cases occurs because well-qualified officers sitting on promotion boards are selecting for other wellqualified officers.

More From Klein

Finished Klein's "Why We're Polarized".  It's due at the library on Sat., but I may get it out again--it's that good.

One point he made struck me: the Democratic Party is an assemblage of identity groups, while the Republicans are more one identity group.  (Not sure that's 100 percent accurate, but they lean that way.)

The result is that the Dems can elect moderates who can appeal to several of their groups, while the Reps don't have that option--it's striking the balance between moderate Reps and conservative Reps.

The Competition for Attention

 Ezra Klein in his "Why We're Polarized" points out there's been a big increase in the competition for attention (my term). In the 1970's we had 3 TV networks plus PBS, a newspaper and a handful of magazines which provided political information.  And access to material published in the past was limited.

Now of course we have more networks, more channels, more social networks and almost everything written remains available.  Perhaps even more significant, the same explosion of channels has happened for ally and all interests one can imagine.  Consider the availability of porn, with every peculiar interest/fetish being served up in a way unimaginable back in the 1970's.  Consider the handcrafts, all the networks and organizations set up to serve knitters, weavers, etc. etc.  

Everything I've mentioned is competing for attention.  People don't have unlimited time and money to devote to everything which might be interesting, so they have to specialize.  In the case of political interests, that tends to mean more controversy--controversy sells.

More on Election/Mail Problems

 As is often the case, I'm not as alarmed as the media or others concerned about the decline of USPS capacity and its impact on the election.  These considerations:

• the media have done their job of crying the alarm (and exaggerating it.  One meme has been the need for USPS to deliver social security checks, but they've been direct deposit for years now.  It's true that rural areas in particular are dependent on USPS.  I agree with the mandate of universal service.  I agree with Kevin Drum that current charges for first class are too low when compared to other countries.  I agree with Charles Lane that charges for corporate mailings are too low, due to their lobby on Capitol Hill.  And it's likely true that many of the changes De Joy has instituted are "good management", if not wise politically.)
• leaders are responding to the alarm.  Michelle Obama urged in-person voting and/or voting early and ensuring that the ballot was received.  Gov. Northam is pushing changes in VA arrangements in a special session of the legislature.  We're 77 days out and given the publicity there will be a lot of changes across the country.
• Harshaw's rule says there will be glitches, widespread, but I'm predicting that the media around 10 pm on Nov. 3 will say the election has gone/is going better than the worse predictions.

Why We're Polarized

In the process of reading this book by Ezra Klein.  One researcher he cites is Henri Tajfel, who found that once we humans categorize things, assign labels to them whether it's groups of people, symbols, or whatever, we start acting on it.  With respect to people this led to:

"They proposed that people have an inbuilt tendency to categorize themselves into one or more "ingroups", building a part of their identity on the basis of membership of that group and enforcing boundaries with other groups.

Social identity theory suggests that people identify with groups in such a way as to maximize positive distinctiveness. Groups offer both identity (they tell us who we are) and self-esteem (they make us feel good about ourselves). The theory of social identity has had a very substantial impact on many areas of social psychology, including group dynamics, intergroup relations, prejudice and stereotyping, and organizational psychology."

Klein notes the dynamics of sports fans, where the objective differences among teams are trivial, but the fanaticism can be large. 

The Strange Death of Europe

 I skimmed through this 2017 book  by Douglas Murray. It's interesting, because it's a very Euro-centric view of migration, but you see parallels and contrasts with the concerns in the US embodied in the Trump administration.  Some points which stuck out to me:

• the decline of Christianity 
• the loss of standards by which to judge (adversely) the Muslim immigrants 
• European guilt over colonialism and German guilt over the Holocaust
• governments were always behind the curve in reacting to increased flow of immigrants
• immigrants as violent, crime-ridden, and not integrating into the society
• loss of faith in Europe
• almost total ignoring of US trends and experience
• perspective that societies are unchangeable, that Europeans don't change when they emigrate, that Muslims don't change
• perspective that European culture/society is very vulnerable to change and loss of old historic values
• alienation from modern life, art, 
• the author's perception is that migrants are unskilled, unlike the US where several groups are more highly skilled than the norm for Americans.

One thing which strikes me--human societies have problems with too rapid changes. Sometimes the reaction is over-reaction, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Sometimes we can succeed in what I'd call "metering change"--taking measures which tend to slow the pace of change down to a speed which is acceptable.  I think that was the case with the New Deal and subsequent farm programs--they didn't save farmers for good, but they "flattened the curve", spreading the change over a longer time with a slower pace.

Prediction on Election Problems

There's a growing number of pieces discussing various problems which could arise in determining the outcome of the 2020 election. Slate has a piece on ten of them, collected from various sources.  As is often the case, I'm more optimistic.

I'll make this set of predictions:

• I don't think there will be a major problem, because I think the Biden-Harris ticket will win convincingly in enough states on election night to make the outcome clear.  There may be some states where the outcome is a bit doubtful, where recounts are going to happen, but history tells us recounts rarely change the result.
• If there are major problems, I expect the leaders of the Republican Party, excluding the Trump-Pence camp, to react much as one would have expected in the past.  Fight for advantage within the rules, as in Florida, but not violate norms.
• Even for Trump and Pence, I don't expect major violations of norms post-election.  Pence would want to run in 2024 and the Kushners may well have ambitions of their own.  At the least a long fight with norm violations is not going to do the Trump Organization any good.  

Questions To Live By

 Reading a recent bio of Ben Franklin.  IIRC we had to read his autobiography in my college course on American Intellectual History.  I've read other books on him, a very engaging figure.  But I'd forgotten these questions which were prerequisite to someone joining his Junto Club, an early do-good nonprofit:

Have you any particular disrespect to any present members? Answer. I have not.
Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer. I do.
Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer. No.
Do you love truth for truth's sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others? Answer. Yes.

Wikipedia tells us that a possible predecessor was a British club, which included John Locke.

I observe the third question is relevant to the so-called "cancel" culture.

Harris for VP

 I'm surprised at the emotional reaction to the nomination expressed in the papers and by one relative.  I'd assumed that we'd had a woman Presidential candidate and a black President, so the combination wouldn't be that significant.  It seems it is, which is a reminder that putting yourself in others' shoes is difficult and often misses.