If You Want a Friend in DC, Get Sunny

To paraphrase HSTruman's words about getting a dog.  That's what I was reminded of by this Politico piece

Non-Discrimination Wording Is Screwy

The USDA non-discrimination statement keeps growing.  I think I remember when it was first added to our releases. 

I copied it from a recent notice and restructured it to try to figure it out:


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers,
employees, and applicants for employment on the basis of[:]

race,
color,
national origin,
age,
disability,
sex,
gender identity,
religion,
reprisal,1/

and [on the basis of ]where applicable:2/

political beliefs,
marital status,
familial or parental status,
sexual orientation,

or all or part of an individual’s income is
derived from any public assistance program,3/

or protected genetic information in employment 4/

or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. 5/

(Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)6/

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, write to the address below or if you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and wish to file either an EEO or program complaint, please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish)


Footnotes (mine).

1/  I assume "reprisal" means reprisal for whistleblowing.  I doubt most people would know that.

2/ I don't understand the "where applicable"?  I could see it applying to "reprisal", because USDA has only a few whistleblowers, but everyone has a marital status, familial status, and a sexual orientation.

3/ One rule in writing sentences is that the different parts (I forget--is this the direct object) must tie back to the beginning.  They could fix it by inserting "whether" before "all or..."

4/  Presumably USDA is vowing not to use genetic information in deciding whether to employ a person, like avoiding hiring someone who's doomed to develop a fatal disease quickly, but it doesn't tie back.

5/  No idea how this is supposed to fit--maybe they're saying USDA offices won't favor a USDA employee, but it certainly doesn't say that.

6/  This parenthetical would do the work of the "where applicable".

Our Federal System, Same Sex Marriage, and Animal Rights

Our federal system is like an apple orchard for small boys.  It provides an abundance of ammunition for political controversy, without worrying about consistency. (I'm flashing back on a war between two groups of boys (10-12) back when I was young.)

 That pontification (I sound more and more like my grandfather) is prompted by Kathleen Parker's column in today's Post, defending the idea of states passing their own laws for humane treatment of farm animals.  What I'm pointing at is the inconsistency of liberals and conservatives: liberals mostly want each state to have their own laws on animal treatment, but they now want all states to recognize marriages wherever made.  Conservatives want to ban state laws which are tougher than national law on animals, but want each state to have the ability to accept or reject marriages formalized in other states. 

There's many more cases of inconsistency, mostly generated by the temptation to snatch up the nearest cudgel handy with which to beat one's foes over the head.

How Far Should Transparency Go?

This site accesses federal government employees' salaries, by name.  It appears to exclude FSA county employees and doesn't cover all departments.  It was fun looking up the salaries of the few people at FSA who still work there.  Fun for me, I'm not sure for them.

In principle I'm all for this.  Of course my annuity isn't reported there.  :-)

Crop Insurance Abroad

A piece on crop insurance in other countries.  Apparently it's being adopted more and more.  In China:

"China’s comprehensive financial support for its farming sector was $156 billion for the year 2011, which included insurance premiums, disease and fire prevention resources and insurance licenses.  Insurance covers crops and livestock and is typically a combination of compensation offered by the central government, the provincial governments and even some city governments. "

Personally I'd question the dollar figure--it might well be the result of a purchasing power conversion.  However, what's the chances of our getting into an "arms race" on the farm front with the Chinese--i.e., "how can our poor farmers compete when our government only provides X dollars in support when the Chinese provides so much more?"  :-)

Political Correctness from 1940

Been reading Lynn Olson's "Those Angry Days" on the fight over the U.S. entering WWII.  It's good, well written and an interesting subject which she handles reasonably objectively.

One factoid which reminds me both how different the past was, and how similar.   A movie [Pastor Hall]was banned in Chicago (remember the days when movies were banned?) because of a Chicago law which prohibited the denigration of any race or ethnicity and the local board thought it was anti-German in its depiction of the treatment of the Jews.

[Updated to add link to movie title, which was based on Rev. Martin Niemuller.]

Stop the Presses: Foodie Says Not All Industrial Food Is

Evil!!  Mark Bittman, the NYTimes resident foodie, has a piece with that title.  He finds some virtue in the canned tomatoes produced by a California grower in Yolo County and canned by a co-op.

The grower is: "

Rominger Brothers Farms is a progressive, diversified family farm and ranch located north of Winters, California. Brothers Rick and Bruce Rominger are fifth-generation Yolo County farmers. They produce many different crops using organic and conventional techniques, including winegrapes, processing tomatoes, rice, wheat, corn, safflower, sunflower, onions, alfalfa and oat hay. As stewards of the land, Bruce and Rick are committed to growing crops in ways that protect the environment, such as minimizing the use of crop protection materials, using drip irrigation to conserve water and using sheep to graze crop residue."

They've 6,000 acres, 40 employees, grow 80 acres of tomatoes and hope to clear $500 an acre. Best I can tell the tomatoes aren't organic.

Bittman's impressed that the canned tomatoes taste better than fresh supermarket ones, but I wonder whether he did a taste test controlling for salt levels.  But still, I have to give him credit for having an open mind.

He does end with a plea for more unionization (though the co-op is unionized) and/or upping the minimum wage.  How he reconciles that with the acknowledgement that " the processed tomato market is international, with increasing pressure from Italy, China and Mexico..." I don't know. 

A side note--the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture in the Clinton era was Richard Rominger; I wonder if there's any relationship?

American Exceptionalism: Biggest, Best, Baddest?

The question in the title was prompted by a comment on a blog post which said, in effect, American racism was uniquely bad.

Seems to me while it was bad, and some still remains, it doesn't qualify for that description.  Maybe the writer is falling prey to American exceptionalism, which says we must always be at the top, and if not at the top at the bottom?

WTO Fades Away

That's my read of this statement from Collin Peterson as reported in Farm Policy:

“As for a coming House-Senate conference, Peterson said he told Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., ‘there will be target prices’ in the Title I safety net program and ‘they will be based on planted acres not to exceed base acres.’ He noted that some commodity groups are ‘simply wrong’ to press base acres rather than planted acres for any target price payments. ‘We can’t sell that to Congress any more … about paying for acres not planted.’”

My recollection is that the WTO believes that paying on planted acres encourages production, which is limited under its rules for agriculture.

Another Pigford II

From High Plains Journal

Based on the data given by the lawyers, about 55 percent of the claimants in the Pigford II case were successful in winning claims, Zippert said. This is slightly less than the 63 percent who prevailed in Pigford I, a surprise to Zippert. He had expected the success rate to reach more than 70 percent in Pigford II, in part because the claimants no longer had to identify a similarly situated white farmer who was not denied help by FSA.