Should I Apologize?

 Reading comments in the FSA Employees Group in Facebook. One noted the proliferation of programs, arguing that Congress should restrain itself.  

One of the things I tried to do during my time on the program side was to make things more efficient, particularly on the software side.  I also got involved in crash efforts when Congress or the administration came up with new programs (1983 payment-in-kind and 1986 disaster I remember particularly). I think I was reasonably successful, so why might I need to apologize?

Isn't there a parable of the  beast of burden which is always able to handle the loads which it's given, until one day the master adds the last straw? (Can't find it in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_that_broke_the_camel%27s_back, but it seems as if there should be one.)

My point: I was just part of a long tradition in AAA/ASCS/FSA of employees taking pride in implementing programs quickly, which created a reputation among policy makers, which led to more and more programs. 

To some extent this is democratic policy making--IRS, SBA, etc. had similar problems in responding to the economic impact of the pandemic. 

But the reality is if we had been screwing up programs in the 1980s and 90s, the employees today won't be overloaded. 

We Need More CoDels

 Politico has a post on the unseen advantages of "Codels"--Congressional delegations visiting foreign countries. Because there's lots of travel time, and less actual meeting time, a codel throws the members together in a non-political environment, allowing them to experience each other as humans, not stereotypes.

A codel also has the advantage of seeming to be work; it doesn't seem to be a vacation or a boondoggle (at least sometimes).  

So maybe some foundation should sponsor domestic codels.

Pigford Case Resolved

 Don't know if I've blogged on this part of the Pigford case before, but here's a case which ends in pleas of guilty by four of the six defendants.

Ukraine-Russia--Siloes Everywhere

  A quote from an assessment of the conflict: 

One challenge here is that NATO standardisation is not very standardised, with different countries’ howitzers not only having completely different maintenance requirements but also using different charges, fuses and sometimes shells.

The old story 

USDA Budget Baseline

 I found this table in the CRS report on farm bill basics interesting: 

What jumps out is the huge increase in the baseline for nutrition programs. 

Douglass on USA Mission

Frederick Douglass had a speech on the US, partially focused on Chinese immigration during a time when that was a big thing.  

Our geographical position, our relation to the outside world, our fundamental principles of government, world-embracing in their scope and character, our vast resources, requiring all manner of labor to develop them, and our already existing composite population, all conspire to one grand end, and that is, to make us the perfect national illustration of the unity and dignity of the human family that the world has ever seen.

That's a vision of America I can endorse.  It's backed by this Bloomberg interview about immigration. 

Hutchinson on Declaration

Boston 1775 has a post on Hutchinson's view of the Declaration. Denies that the thirteen colonies constitute a "people" and points to the conflict between "life, liberty, pursuit.." and slavery.  

So the founders hypocrisy was apparent early (and to themselves, given the rapid progress of gradual emancipation in the northern colonies by 1790). 

It's interesting though that he thinks there are 100,000 slaves. (The 1790 census showed about 700,000.)  

Proud To Be an American

 In response to a tweet by Will Hurd:

I understand and appreciate why 72% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track, but despite this pessimism what is one reason why you are thankful to be an American?

— Will Hurd (@WillHurd) July 4, 2022

Lots of people from all over want to come here, and most find it good enough to stay and live.

— Bill Harshaw (@BillHarshaw) July 4, 2022

Is the popularity of the country sufficient reason to be proud?  YES.  

It's an objective measure of the value of the country. It's one which both conservatives and liberals, the far right and far left ought to be able to embrace. 

Mainline Christianity--Membership Versus Affiliation

 

My curiosity was triggered by this tweet:

In fact, the only denomination among whites that has increased recently is "mainline Protestant," which is decidedly liberal on abortion. The decline of "evangelical Protestant" - especially compared to other sects - since 2006 is very noticeable. pic.twitter.com/XUxdJa4VV0

— Aaron Astor (@AstorAaron) July 3, 2022

So I did a little looking at Wikipedia.   It seems Pew did surveys in 2014 and 2020 of individuals, asking their affiliations.  And the survey does show an increase between those years, with 16.4 percent being members of mainline Protestant churches (Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ).  But in 2010 a survey of denominations for their membership showed 7.3 percent.

That's quite a gap. 

The To and Fro of Government and Private

 Much of what government,at least American government, does is to take over what private initiative has started and make it more uniform, more universal.

For example, roads--many of our roads started as Indian trails, simply because of the influence of geography. Colonies did some roads, private initiative did other roads ("turnpikes" as I was taught), eventually governments took over almost all roads, except for driveways.  That was mostly true through the 20th century; now private enterprise is building roads again, toll roads.

Another example is redlining.  The simple version is that the New Deal's agency to provide mortgages for housing and distressed homeowners divided cities into two areas: those where no mortgages would be supported and those where mortgages were available.  The redlined areas were black, the others were white. That's drastically oversimplified, as McWhorter describes in this Times piece.

The reality is that bankers were always deciding who could get a mortgage and who couldn't.  As their volume increased, they simplified their decision making by generalizing to areas.  When the Feds got involved, they further generalized the process.  

See this piece by Colin Gordon in Dissent.

What Really Matters to Congress: Policy or Offices?

 David Brooks on Newshour Friday said he'd learned, contrary to the assumptions of political scientists,  that people don't want power.  He was talking about Congress not being willing to write specific authorities in legislation, as SCOTUS in this week's decision, says they ought to, rather than relying on agencies like EPA to decide and act.

It sort of fits with something I learned from "The First Congress", a book by Fergus Bordewich on the wheelings and dealings during 1789-91.  I've learned the Bill of Rights was not the Congressional version of the Ten Commandments, words of wisdom widely debated and finally etched in stone.  Some legislators saw them as rather meaningless, sops thrown to the Anti-Federalists who'd extracted the promise of amendments as part of state ratification of the Constitution.

Much more important to Congress was the location of the national capital.  It took months of maneuvering and deliberations before the final compromise which settled it.   

That also fits with another action this week: Congress blew up efforts to rationalize and modernize the Veterans Administrations healthcare facilities.  That reminded me of a similar attempt back in the early 1980's to rationalize ASCS offices. It ended badly.

So my bottom line: Congress doesn't do well on difficult policy questions; it's much more interested in offices and jobs and will never delegate authority to agencies to change them.

Roles and Metaphors?

 Found myself changing from my usual jeans and work shirt into khakis and button down shirt the other day.  Why? 

Wife and I going to see the dentist to discuss future treatments.  Somehow I felt my mode of dress would affect how the dentist would respond to my opinions. 

The way we dress conveys messages about who we are or want to be, whether we're conforming to a given role or not.

Back in the day when my wife and I started going to the Kennedy Center for symphony concerts we always dressed up.  That was usual then.  That expectation has changed over 44 years; we're now in the minority, likely even among our age group. 

I Remember the Lord's Prayer

 Sometime in the early 1950's our morning routine in my school changed.  IIRC at just before 8 am the principal would come the loudspeaker system (in each classroom) with any announcements.  Then we'd all stand with hands across our hearts and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  (A pledge changed to add the words "under God" during those years.)

The change was adding the Lord's Prayer to the routine. At various times my mother and sister both taught Sunday School.  My paternal great grandparents and my grandfather were all ministers. Early on I was very into Sunday School and the singing in our local Methodist church (no nearby Presbyterian churches). But by the mid-50's I turned against religion, considering myself to be an agnostic.  (Now I claim to be an atheist.) So at sometime I stopped saying the Lord's Prayer.  It was a bit uncomfortable.  I don't remember whether anyone conforted me; if they did the fact my father was school board chair was protection (though I never told dad of my stand).

Tattoos

NY Times says 1/3 of Americans have a tattoo. That's a big change in the culture from my youth, when tattoos were limited to a few sailors and other veterans. A tattoo signified (not a word much used in the 1950's) the man (never a woman, except maybe a stripper) was a rebel and/or on the fringes of society.

Cars and Pedestrians--A Metaphor IV

 I want to push the metaphor comparing drivers and pedestrians to those entrapped in our racial web.

• the norms and rules for driving a car are both imposed by history and learned early, as we watch our parents and others drive from within the car, and watch other cars.  The norms and rules for being a pedestrian are less obvious and mostly less formal, except when walkers come into contact with cars, bicycles, etc.  But they too are learned early.  I had to learn to jaywalk; as a country boy and a natural born bureaucrat I over-conformed to the rules as I learned them. Mostly the norms are learned early enough they work below our consciousness--like walking to the right. 
• typically I think we are much less aware of the driver inside the car; we just see the car.  That's similar to how we treat members of racial/ethnic/identity groups.  We don't see the Amish or Hasids as individuals, not the ego within the body or clothing, just the outside.  The same goes for others on the stage of life: celebrities of all kinds.
• I choose to drive a car, or to walk. Once I make my choice, I inherit the whole cluster of norms described above.  My behavior as a driver is somewhat under my control, but it is very constrained.  The constraints are firmer for individuals; the norm is that an individual's racial identity is not under her control (particularly before the civil rights movement).  

I think what captured my imagination here is how quickly and sharply my behavior and attitudes switch when I got from pedestrian to driver and back.  Intellectually I know we fill many different roles as we live, all governed by social norms and habits, but this particular pair of roles illustrates their nature very well.

Anniversary of AS-400

 Saw a Facebook post in 2016 commemorating AS-400 (leaving the county FSA office).  Clicked on the hashtag and found some posts about job opportunities working on AS-400 programs, some dated relatively recently (i.e., 2021).  

IIRC the changeover from the System/36 to the AS-400 was happening as I retired in 1997. So the System/36 lasted maybe 10-15 years; the AS-400 maybe 20 years or so. 

Crime and My Six Convicts

 There's a lot of discussion of crime these days, particularly on Twitter where I follow Peter Moskos, @PeterMoskos, a professor who served as a policeman in Baltimore. 

A very popular book in 1951, so popular mom gave it to dad for Christmas, was this (from the entry in Goodreads):

My Six Convicts: A Psychologist's Three Years in Fort Leavenworth

by 

Donald Powell Wilson

really liked it 4.00  ·   Rating details ·  20 ratings  ·  2 reviews

With an appointment by the U.S.Public Health Service to conduct research in the relationship between drug addiction and criminality in the new research hospital at Fort Leavenworth Penitentiary, I arrived as a professor of psychology and left three years later as a professor of psychology in the 1930s, but not the same, not the same at all. But this book is not a record of the research project but rather a reminiscent impression of the "humors, whimsies and tragedies of my six convict assisants--my world as they saw it and their world as I saw it".

As he mentioned, he had six convicts who assisted in his research.  IIRC he didn't discuss his research much, but tells stories, stories which one reviewer found fictional.  But at the end, again if I remember, he described some of the six convicts as men who couldn't be rehabilitated and released. 

Health System--Dentistry

 My wife and I use Kaiser for health care.  It works well, testing, drugs, specialties, all under one roof (at least metaphorically because there's one database and efficient handoff from one provider to the next).

Unfortunately Kaiser doesn't do dentistry, so when significant problems crop up we're thrown into a different world:

• each provider has her own set of questions to obtain personal data and health history, allergies, drugs, etc.
• each provider has a process to move information back and forth, sometimes still including the use of fax!!!! (This is the 21st century, people).
• each  provider has a separate website which may or may not have been updated and which have their own structure and feel.
• referrals from one to another are a bit kludgey.
• transparency is often lacking.

Otherwise the people are nice and capable. Just operating within a poor structure. 

Cars and Pedestrians--A Metaphor III

 My second continuation:

The points I made in my previous post:What's going on?  

• binary--cars versus walkers
• power--cars have more power
• conflict over scarce resource
• laws and rules to govern power and conflict
• infringing laws
• identifying with fellows generates emotion
• game playing, esp by weaker

Any reader who has gotten this far may be asking: where's the metaphor:

Specifically, when we Americans have our usual discussions of race, of African-Americans and European heritage, we could be talking cars and walkers:

• blacks and whites are binary groups in society, but not in reality
• whites have more power than blacks
• the groups are competing for scarce resources--position in society as represented by wealth and prestige
• there are laws and norms to govern the behavior of the races
• both push the limits or violate the laws
• there's strong in-group feeling for those identifying with the group
• both sides play games, esp the weaker blacks

You Can't Have It Both Ways?

 I've seen this expression recently, mostly in relation to people like Pence who are getting credit from liberals like me for doing his duty or Liz Cheney for her position on 1/6. 

For me, a half loaf is better than none.  Any time someone on the right does something good, it's fine.  I'd compare them to Sen. Ervin during Watergate, or Gov. Hogan's father, who was a member of House Judiciary Committee who voted for impeachment, which was surprising given his generally conservative record. 

Cars and Pedestrians--A Metaphor II

 A continuation from yesterday:

What's going on?  

• there's a good binary separation going on: I'm either a driver in a car, or a walker.
• there's a power difference: as a walker I can't do much to a car; as a driver I can kill the walker
• there's a conflict of interests--drivers and walkers are dividing up a scarce resource--the right to traverse the intersection.
• there's laws, rules, and norms for each, I suspect particularly because of the conflict and power difference. We're both supposed to act in obedience to the traffic light.
• reality is that drivers and walkers push the envelope routinely.  We mock a driver who obsessively follows traffic laws, like never speeding. We acknowledge jaywalking.
• judging by my emotions, I feel some kinship with fellow drivers, also with fellow walkers; I'd guess that's a common feeling.
• both sides can play mind games. As a driver I don't always yield to a walker in the cross-walk.
• it seems to me mind games are the weapon of the weaker party. Personally, at the intersection I'm describing, there's are turn arrows.  When the through lanes change to red, the right turn arrow turns green.  After the turning traffic gets its turn, the turn arrow goes blank. A couple seconds later the walk sign turns on (and the turn arrow goes to blinking yellow).  I make a habit of starting to cross when the turn arrow goes blank-- figuring that means the turning traffic now needs to stop.  That means I'm often  stepping into the path of cars whose drivers are planning to slow but not stop for the turn.  I take satisfaction in imagining the drivers are frustrated, and perhaps will remember to be more cautious next time.

Cars and Pedestrians--a Metaphor-I

 When I cross Reston Parkway on the way to and from my garden, I now use the button for pedestrian crossing.  (I used to jaywalk because it was easy enough to see oncoming traffic, I was impatient, but no longer--the risk seems greater the older I get.) Particularly going to the garden there's often stopped cars in the 2 through lanes, so cars zooming up Reston and looking to make a right turn onto Glade can't see me starting to cross. They are used to not having to stop, despite the law. 

As I'm walking I silently dare the bastards to run into me.  

When I drive north on Reston Parkway to the library, Home Depot, or Trader Joes, I pass by Reston Town Center.  There's apartment buildings on the south side of the road, with the hotel, stores and office buildings of the center on the north side.  So there's a pedestrian crossing with a button. With a four-lane parkway, it takes forever for the damn pedestrians to amble across.  Or at least, the light is timed so as not to hurry an eighty-year old man with bad legs.

I sit in the car, steaming.  

I think this scenario can serve as a metaphor for racism. 

I'll try to expand on this in the future.

Fearing Climate Change--Don't Underestimate Resilience

 Virginia Postrel has an old article  on several things, but the hook is the difference between East and West Coasts, specifically Silicon Valley and Boston.  It leads up to this:

In his 1988 book, SEARCHING FOR SAFETY, the late UC-Berkeley political scientist Aaron Wildavsky laid out two alternatives for dealing with risk: anticipation, the static planning that aspires to perfect foresight, and resilience, the dynamic response that relies on having many margins of adjustment:

Anticipation is a mode of control by a central mind; efforts are made to predict and prevent potential dangers before damage is done. Forbidding the sale of certain medical drugs is an anticipatory measure. Resilience is the capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest, learning to bounce back. An innovative biomedical industry that creates new drugs for new diseases is a resilient device. . . . Anticipation seeks to preserve stability: the less fluctuation, the better. Resilience accommodates variability; one may not do so well in good times but learn to persist in the bad.

 I want to apply the distinction to our approach to climate change. Most of the things we're doing are anticipatory, central, top-down.  That's good, but my general optimism is based on human resilience.  There are many things going on which will enable us to survive with a reasonable standard of living.  For example, in today's papers there was a brief mention of scientists working on wheat varieties which are more heat tolerant. 

Who, Me Worry? GOP Election Deniers

 Kevin Drum has a post on the election deniers who are seeking office. There's lots of concern over the idea that someone who thinks the 2020 election was fraudulent being in a position of authority over the 2024 election.

I'm not nearly as worried about it as others seem to be.

Why not?  Human nature.  Put briefly, I think once most of these people get into office (which I fervently hope does not happen), they'll try to run "fair" elections by their lights.  "Fair" may well include more restrictions on voting than I want, but I don't see many trying to stuff ballot boxes. 

Way too optimistic?  Maybe, but that's my prediction.

Sweden Lunches at Neighbors

 This thing about a neighbor's child not eating at a nearby home is oldish. I don't remember ever eating at a neighbor's house when I was young, or vice versa.  There weren't many children in my neighborhood in the first place.  In the second, I think the common expectation was that meals were at a set time and you were expected to go home to eat. 

Ken Feinberg

 Saw the movie "Worth", which is based on Kenneth Feinberg's work administering compensation for victims of 9/11, and his book.

They juiced the movie by focusing on people and incidents, as movies do, but both are good.

The book is interesting from a bureaucratic standpoint--though Feinberg doesn't say so, he goes through the classic steps of American bureaucracy (for a distribution program*), reading the law (very general), meeting management (Attorney General Ashcroft and DOJ), writing regulations, creating forms to gather data, then selling the program, accepting some as participants, disqualifying others, then dealing with the friction between the bureaucratic model and the real reality, and finally issuing checks.

Feinberg had some experience before 9/11 with mediating and doing compensation, but afterwards he handled many more such situations.  It's interesting, because he doesn't endorse the 9/11 process as an example, particularly the use of "economic value" of a life, an after-the-fact life insurance program.  

* My government professor, Theodore Lowi, had categorized government programs into: redistribution, regulation, and distribution.

Jan 6 Hearing Starts

 I don't have high expectations for the Jan 6 committee's work to change many minds. Those who oppose the former guy may watch; those who (incredibly) love him won't. 

Why I Don't Believe in Great (White) Replacement Theory

 It's true that the current white majority of Americans will diminish as we accept more immigrants from areas other than Europe, and as new immigrants tend to have a higher birth rate than non-immigrants.

I expect "whites" to continue to be a plurality of the country for the foreseeable future because:

• immigration will ease somewhat as the non-European world becomes richer
• immigrant birth rates will converge to the rates of non-immigrants
• the definition of "whites" will change and expand as it has in the past.  Acculturation (loss of accents, etc.) and intermarriage will see to that.  

I expect the culture to continue to be "white", although with changes as the world changes. I think you can still see the imprint of the early white settlers, especially in New England but also in the South, for good and bad on the culture and beliefs of America.  I think that will continue. 

I might have a different opinion if the "replacements' represented one culture, but they don't.  Wherever you look there's variety among the immigrants: Asians from many different countries; Latinos from many different countries; Africans and Afro-Caribbeans from different countries. As they arrive, we lump them together, and they in part accept the lumping. But the differences continue for decades.  It's taken more than my lifetime for the differences betwee the WASPs and Eastern/Southern European immigrants after the Civil War to lose their power. 

It's not like Eire and Northern Ireland or Israel, where you have two groups, one majority that's shrinking, the other a minority that's growing.  That's a much dicier situation, harder to keep calm and more likely, I think, to see a "replacement" occur (though I suspect the cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Arabs are less than those among our immigrants.

See this Post article

All the Little Silos

 The Times has an article on the high-tech weaponry reaching Ukraine and the problems associated with it. Some of the technology is striking, particularly the laser range finder, which works at night, uses GPS and provides targeting coordinates. 

 Mostly it's lack of trained personnel, but in the case of the range finder it's also the lack of a tripod and monitor, the auxiliary tools to make it work smoothly.

But what I found blog-worthy were the incidental mentions of the various silos which humans have erected. 

For example, the long range howitzers the US just provided are built according to US measuring systems (our "imperial" system, aka inch/foot), not the metric system Ukraine and the rest of the world uses (every country except Liberia and Myamar), That means to perform maintenance and/or repair them the mechanic needs US tools, wrenches, not Ukrainian. 

The range finder uses NATO grid coordinates, not the Soviet system Ukraine has, so a conversion is necessary. 

Of course the howitzers and other technology come complete with manuals--the military is great on manuals.  And everyone knows English, of course. (Apparently Google Translate has been helpful to break through this silo wall.)

Elsewhere in the media there's been another mention of the problem of different railroad gauges complicating the export of grain by rail through Poland.

What Did Historians Make of Muskie's (Supposed) Tears?

 Bob Somerby doesn't have a high opinion of the media, or of liberal thinkers, usually.  Sometimes his posts are tedious, but sometimes not.

Because he's close to my age, Harvard-educated, and former Baltimore schoolteacher, I read him.

Today's post discusses the episode of Muskie's tears, back when he was the leading contender for the 1972 Democratic nomination, having done a good job as Humphrey's VP partner in 1968.  Part of the Watergate investigation revealed/highlighted  Nixon's dirty tricks campaign against Muskie.  Woodward and Bernstein discussed it in yesterday's Post as part of their 50th anniversary piece on Watergate.

I remember both the report of Muskie's "tears" when he spoke defending his wife, and the dirty tricks campaign, as well as the Waldman piece in the Post this century which Bob covers. 

I've wondered over the years what today's historians have made of the story. By today's standards Muskie's defense of his wife is goodish, his vulnerability if he actually cried should not have been disqualifying, the question of whether he actually cried and whether the reporters/media types handled it correctly makes it too complicated to cover briefly.  That's assuming they understand the story. But when I'm cynical I'm guessing it's the sort of factoid which isn't closely examined; it just gets added to the text to provide color, etc. 

Is my cynicism correct?

What's Watergate? Teapot Dome?

 I quote from a NYTimes piece on a focus group, asking Americans about various topics.

The first response when Nixon and Watergate is raised:

"I don’t think it gets taught enough. My high school students, when they think of Watergate, they think it’s a new shower head or something. It’s a time in our history that shows the demise of a leader who was taking advantage of the American people, as well as the government itself. I’ve never heard the kids coming home and saying, “Oh, we learned about Watergate.”

My wife and I roared with laughter.

Stanford Research on Farm Programs and Politics

 Here's a Stanford Phd candidate doing research on the relationship between participation in farm programs and political views.

How to Build Infrastructure and State Capacity

 Ezra Klein has an essay on building government infrastructure. Some thoughts on the topic, most unrealistic in today's polity:

• review and revise the statistical infrastructure. As I've written before, my guess is that the various statistical agencies of the government are operating in the context of yesterday's world. Because statistics is a boring subject, it doesn't attract much controversy or oversight.  
• there's lots of real-time data out there, as we're reminded regularly in articles voicing concerns about consumer privacy.  Can the government tap that?
• concerns about privacy mean that the census and other reports anonymized--is there a better approach to this?
• what gaps in statistical coverage have developed as the economy has changed over the last 40 years? 
• Jimmy Carter had a vision for changing the federal personnel system with the Senior Executive Service, making it more like the UK system.  IMO it's not worked as it was supposed to. 
• Slowly slowly the government is moving towards more standardization with gov.id and the US Digital Service. Maybe over many years the US will approach the UK in the degree of uniformity in govt sites.
• Probably should be more interaction between the various associatons of state and local government entities and the federal govt.  I'm just vaguely aware that such associations exist--like state legislature, county govts, sheriffs, etc. Possibly there is some formal interface which I don't know about
• Trying to encourage more standardization of state and local government operations would help, as shown by the problems with the unemployment insurance systems during the pandemic recession.
• Maybe giving each legal resident a no-charge banking account and govt email account  would be good.
• 
  

Assault Weapon Ban?

 Statistia has an article on an assault weapon ban, including links to studies, like this Stanford one on the effect of the Clinton 1994 ban, which expired after 10 years. 

The sunset provision was likely a compromise to get it passed.  I wonder if it would have worked to include a criteria in such legislation--i.e., specifying that if after 10 years there was a decline in fatalities the law would continue, if not, it would end?

Biden is speaking tonight, presumably to urge passage of something which will disappoint gun safety advocates and irk those in gun advocacy organizations. 

An interesting advance in 3-D printing described in the paper today--using a person's own cells to print an ear, inserted beneath the skin (person's one ear was small and misformed).  In terms of guns, it shows how 3-D printing is advancing, reminding me of the "ghost guns".  Technology may have already outstripped any law which can be passed, at least in my lifetime.

How To Coddle College Freshmen

 Whoever thought of "experience courses"?

Has anyone taught a freshman first year experience course before? Would you be willing to share your syllabi? What sort of things should one expect to teach in that course?

— John R. Legg (@thejohnlegg) May 31, 2022

From the responses I gather it is an orientation to college extending for some time, perhaps the full term?

It's another example of how today's students have it too damn easy.

Damn, wish I'd had such a course 63 years ago 

Gun Safes and Safety

 On a beautiful Sunday afternoon some speculation.  Read an article about "smart guns"--the idea being that the gun and the owner would be tied together by some means--biometric perhaps, i.e., fingerprint.  People are working on it, but it's difficult to make it relatively foolproof, particularly when the concept faces hurdles gaining acceptance in the market.

There are also some laws/proposals for requiring gun safes. It seems as if the people who would follow such a law are among the people least likely to need it, though keeping guns away from youngsters tempted to play with them while the parents are away is worthwhile.  Reduce gun deaths by preventing accidents, if not homicides.

How about using bluetooth and the internet?  Sell guns with an associated gun safe which can sense the presence or absence of the gun.  That should be easy enough. Then have the gun safe wifi-enabled with an app on the smartphone.  So one or more people could be sent alerts when the gun is removed from the safe. Such a notice would help in cases where a child/teen/burglar removes the gun.  

The idea wouldn't prevent many cases, but some.  Not sure if 2nd Amendment types would go along, but some might.

Blast from the Past

 Time for something completely different, Silky Sullivan. You have to be old, or a horse racing nut (I'm the former) to know the name, but the two racing performances I remember well are Secretariat in the Belmont and Silky Sullivan in his trademark races.

Uvalde Perspectives

 Megan McArdle tweeted this:

I can't say exactly what happened in Uvalde, but having written a book on failure, I'd bet investigation will not reveal one bad decision, but a string of overlapping failures, most of which occurred individually before with no real incident, but collectively became disastrous

— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) May 27, 2022

Graham Factor had this.

I think both are good perspectives.  I remember Kitty Genovese from the 1960's, where the original story turned out wrong.  It's possible that multiple police forces on the scene and poor communication from the 911 system to the police were factors.  We don't know, and it's too early to say.

Fallows on Guns

This Fallows post expresses my thoughts on Buffalo and Uvalde. 

WEIRD

 

Not the best photo, but this is Joseph Henrich's flowchart summarizing his 450 pp book, starting with Christianity competing with other religions (the cutoff part at the top) leading to Western civilization, which is educated, individualistic, rich, and democratic.

More to come, maybe.

Guns--May 25

 Reading "Lady Bird Johnson: Hiding in Plain Sight" which is good, better for anyone who didn't live through the Johnson administration and read her memoir.

Just reached June 4, 1968, when RFK was assassinated, following the killing of MLK in Memphis. The author quotes an excerpt from a speech by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the next day (who had campaigned for RFK) in which he said: "America is a land of violent people, with a violent history..."  Seems to fit today. 

I tweeted this today: "Is it strange that the NRA's good man with a gun guarding a school or church never requires an AR-15, but John Doe defending his home has an absolute right to an AR-15?"

Not sure that expresses my intent--in other words: shouldn't the good guys have weapons at least as good as possible assailants?  It's obvious to me that an AR-15 or similar weapon is not for self-defense. 

Did the End of the Draft Spur the Big Sort?

 The "big sort" is the label applied to the increasing polarization between Democrats and Republicans, where the differences within the party have diminished over the last 50 years and the differences between the parties have increased.

I've read theories about the sort, most of which I've forgotten by now.  I've likely posted before on it before. A couple speculations:

1. one of the integrating forces in American history has been war. The necessity of mobilizing armed forces to fight Native Americans, the French, the British, the Spanish, the Germans,the Koreans, the Chinese, the Soviets, the Vietnamese, etc. consistently brings together men and now women from different places and different social groups and strata and gives them a common experience with a common foe.  When civilian society supports their sons and daughters in a war it brings people together.  I think this has been especially true in the 20th century when the draft was in effect.  With the ending of the draft that integrating force has weakened.
2. While real estate development is perhaps the most characteristic American occupation, and doing subdivisions which cater to a relatively uniform clientele (in terms of race, salary, life style) has been going on since early days in New England, it seems to be massive developments, the Levittown type projects, really got going in the 1950's.  That geographic separation must have contributed to polarization.

Am I Addicted to Porn, War Porn?

 I'm not addicted to porn, not sexual porn.  I'm trying to avoid being addicted to what I call "war porn", which I consider some of the reporting from war fronts to be.  In some ways it's similar to sportscasters/writers who are "homers". It's seductive to go all in on supporting one party in a conflict, but too often when you look back on them they turn out to be mistakes. 

Watering the Milk and Vegan Milk

Stumbled on a factoid in the footnotes to a book I'm reading: "The Weirdest People in the World"--about which more later.  The footnote ties to a mention of what economists call "credence goods".  Thoreau originated a famous quote, now used by lawyers: "a trout in the milk" which the piece at the link explains. 

The context is that buffalo milk in markets in an Indian city was tested and found to be adulterated by the addition of varying amounts of water, from 3 percent to more than 40 percent. But consumers couldn't distinguish the adulteration by taste (hence a credence good). 

In the US milk, at least cows milk, is tested for quality, such as fat content. Thoreau's observation--that finding a trout in the milk would be sure proof the milk had been watered--shows this wasn't always the case in the U.S.

As far as I can tell, based on an extensive 10 minutes of research, there are no standards for plant-based milk--all the attention seems to be devoted to the issue of whether calling it "milk" is misleading.  

I'd guess that milk testing evolved well before the idea of requiring nutritional labels on food, and as long as plant-based milks have such labels it removes any impetus for a testing regime comparable to that for milk. 

The Last Mile Problem

 I've used this term before, writing about government.  A slightly different focus this time: local government, schools, libraries, etc.

In theory these days there's lots more data available, in that data is mostly digital and most digital data can be accessed.  In the case of Ipswich, MA the 21st century has seen a gap develop:  in the 20th century the town published a "Town Report", a big volume containing a series of annual reports by each individual unit of town government, and there were a lot of them.  In the 20th century there were local newspapers which would run stories on important local issues, interviews with candidates for local office, etc.

Now in the 21st century the Town Report is no more; there's a website.  The newspapers are now online and much slimmed down.  The town has a website and a Facebook page.  Someone curious and adept can search out a lot of information, sometimes by links to reports by Massachusetts agencies, or from what seems to be a outfit providing business services.  But for the average citizen it's all confusing: just a lot of web pages and reports.

In other words there's no human intermediary, no institution which has developed over the ages to interpret the work of government for the average citizen.  Why is that:

• the leadership elite doesn't realize that the gap has resulted as the internet has evolved
• citizens usually don't have a driving interest in local government so aren't motivated to do research nor have they grown up with the internet so are lacking some tools to deal with the gap
• it's easy for bureaucrats to delegate the communication responsibility to others: in the past the news reporters, now the techies who are doing the websites, etc. 
• the result is there's no institution which has evolved over time to torture bureaucrats and make their living by interpreting data for citizens.

Progress in Medicine

 Reading a biography of Lady Bird Johnson.  LBJ had gall bladder surgery, meaning an "enormous scar" which he showed off to the media and almost 2 weeks in the hospital.

My wife had surgery maybe 15 years ago, laparoscopic, and three days in the hospital (one pre-op because it wasn't scheduled), and today apparently it can be out-patient.

Four Feet Eight and One-Half

I saw a reference to this issue last week in connection with moving military supplies into Ukraine.  IIRC there might have been a military rationale for having different track gauges (distance between rails) between countries--making it impossible for an armored train or supply trains to cross borders as part of an invasion.

Here's a quote from a Politico piece on the nominee for NATO command:

He has also thrown himself into more intricate issues such as launching studies of railroad gauges and transportation infrastructure in Eastern Europe, which often still use Warsaw Pact standards, in an effort to smooth the movement of NATO troops and materiel.

Different gauges were a big problem in the early days of railroading, including during the Civil War.