What Will Change After Pandemic and BLM and Election?

I think we may err in expecting a lot of change after 2020 ends. My sketchy thoughts:

• yes, if Biden wins  there will be a lot of change in government, but mostly it will be reversion to the norm.  Even if Biden carries in a solid majority in the Senate, I don't expect changes on order of LBJ's Great Society in 1965-68.  Or even Reagan's changes.  I'd add a qualifier--there may be a lot of changes on the international front, which will force more changes than we can see now.
• full recovery from the pandemic will take years. I'd expect the major changes to be the result of people getting more used to online everything. But otherwise I'd expect reversion to the norm generally.
• the current BLM protests will result in some moderately important changes in law, justice, and policing, but not much more.

The theme here is, I think, the power of old habits and the past.  I hope to live long enough to see how wrong I am.

Pigford's Legacy

Government processes grind slowly away.  And, just because we're old, it doesn't mean you can trust the aged.  Years after the first and second Pigford claim settlements, DOJ brought suit against four sisters in their 70's for defrauding the government and tax evasion.  They arranged for the filing of 192 claims under the Pigford and the Hispanic settlements, getting money under the table from the claimants and conspiring with an attorney and a tax preparer to submit false claims for tax refunds.

I feel sorry for the 192 claimants, who lied on their applications, but who trusted people when they shouldn't have.

R.I.P. Freedom to Farm

Sen. Pat Roberts is retiring.  He was the ranking Republican/Chair of House Agriculture Committee last century.  His big thing was what he called "Freedom to Farm", ending government regulations and programs.  That became the informal title of the 1996 farm bill.

I don't think many farmers believe the reforms worked, either in the early 2000's or now.  Today's Farm Policy has an article on the current state of government help for agriculture.

"A Switch Before Time" Coming?

The Supreme Court famously defanged FDR's court-packing plan by delivering some pro-New Deal decisions--the "switch in time saved nine". 

There has been some discussion of possibly expanding the Supreme Court if the Democrats won the election.  I think it's a non-starter, but some serious people have talked about it. Today's decision on the LGBTQ issue makes me wonder if SCOTUS will tread carefully between now and the election, just in case the polls are right and Dems win big. 

Not a serious thought, but we'll see.

Pandemic From 30,000 Feet Again

This is based on the NYTimes summary as of June 13.

It seems to me you can categorize states by the shapes of their case graphs:

• States with one defined peak, and a fairly consistent decline from that peak.  This would include the NY/NJ/CT/MA states, with early peaks, and a number of other states which were slower to peak.
• States with two fairly clear peaks, which might include FL, TN, KY
• States which have never reached a peak--i.e., their case load is still climbing. Includes CA, TX,  AL, UT, NC, SC, AR, KY,
• Small states with too few cases to evaluate.
• Mixed cases

Trying to create a story from this data, I go back to my previous pandemic post:  

• the East Coast states were hit early because they are both well networked with Europe and dense.  That meant they weren't prepared and got overwhelmed early, but they learned to take covid-19 seriously and adopted measures which reduced spread.
• other states didn't take the virus that seriously (i.e., even if they were officially locked down, public compliance was less than in the hard hit states), meaning if they were networked like FL, they could have an early peak and then a later one.
• possibly two peaks reflects a matter of luck, the virus hitting nursing homes, etc. once, then a slower spread to the more general population.

A Sad Photo of Joyous Wedding

The Post had a picture of a wedding today, which I can't find online.  It was illustrating a Lisa Bonos story on a convergence of BLM and the wedding in Philadelphia.  All very joyous and feel-good, except when you look closely at the one photo of the wedding celebrants.

If I counted correctly there were 18 women and 7 men in the party.  I can make assumptions about the cause of the apparent gender imbalance, but whatever the reasons IMHO it casts a shadow on the event.

Watching the Messy Process of Implementation in the Field

I'm enjoying watching the FSA field people administering the CFAP by logging into the FSA Facebook Group. 

I have to remember I'm lurking, and no longer have the knowledge nor authority to comment on anything.  Much of the discussions seem familiar from times gone by but what's more visible (probably not new but it wasn't visible before) is the networking among the program technicians as they're officially called today.  I wonder how many of the State and DC specialists are auditing this group?

NASCOE has had a system of "program" recommendations where they pass problems and suggestions from the field on to the DC specialists for possible resolution. It seems to take a while to make the circuit.  Some of the problems raised in the Facebook group are resolvable there--just a lateral flow of knowledge and tips.  Some of the problems may be tackled by people with special knowledge, particularly of the software. Since the group has maybe 1,000 members, and the field offices probably have 7K+ employees plus temps I wonder whether the lateral flow of info is reaching everyone it should. 

Children Born Racist?

CNN says they aren't.  I disagree.

Children are born human.  As such they have both the capacity to fear and flee from the unknown, and to know and love the known.   The family and social structures they're born into will guide them to things to know, and how to fear the things they don't.  Racism evolves from the interplay of the human abilities and the environment.  It's inevitable.

The Effect of Graphics

Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have graphs showing the deaths due to the covid-19 virus over the days since Mar. 1.  The Post's graph is on the front page, spanning one column, which represents 1/6 of the width of the paper.  The Times' graph is on page 4, in their coronavirus update column, which is double width--two columns. 

I've not measured the height scale, but the general effect is that the Post's graph shows a steep decline after a vertical rise in cases while the Times shows a much more gradual decline.  Same data, different impressions.

Reboot the Police

That's my position.  I don't particularly want to reduce funding for police.  History says, I think, that the public overreacts to swings in crime, cutting police excessively in low-crime periods, ignore a period of increase in crime, then over-fund police in an attempt to catch up.  In other words, we overshoot both on increases and decreases.

What I do want is more research into policing-- we have so many different strategies proposed:

• tough on crime, lots of policy,
• community policing--cops on the beat knowing the community
• broken-windows
• social services--replacing cops on the beat with social workers
• etc., etc.

Why can't we take precincts which are matched in demographics, etc. and use one strategy in one and a different one in the other.  Keep the experiment going for years and learn. 

Instead of taking money from police for the sake of taking money, raise taxes on me and you to fund needed and useful government services.