Pet Peeve: Academics/Media and Naval Terms

Early on I got heavily into 20th century naval technology and history, such as the development of the torpedo, of torpedo boats, of torpedo boat destroyers (now just destroyers), etc.

So it aggravates me when, as in "A Very Stable Genius" I see a writer loosely use the term "battleship" for a significant ship of some size, whose precise description I can't be bothered with.  (Otherwise the book is very good, recommended.)

I find this in academic works as well as popular nonfiction and media writing.  There are no battleships on active duty in today's Navy.

MFP and CFAP and ?

Politico has a piece on Trump's payment programs for farmers, which have set new records, arguing it will be difficult to cut back.

It's not Trump's fault, entirely. Yes, he bears responsibility for the trade war with China, which then justified $23 billion in MFP payments, and seems not to have accomplished much. But the payments under CFAP to cushion the blows of the pandemic are as big, or will be bigger.  And farm state Democrats are as eager as Republicans to fund the payments. 

I'm waiting for the WTO evaluation of the programs, but Trump is likely to pull us out of that as well.

I Was a Redskin Fan

In my youth I followed the NY Giants, which was the team being carried on local TV. After college and Army I lost most contact with the Giants, although for a couple years they had an ex-Cornell quarterback, Gary Wood., who may have been a better athlete than Tiger Woods BTW.

Living in DC and following sports in the Washington Post I gradually became a Redskins fan, especially during the glory days of the Hogs. As I grew older and the Redskins started losing more often my involvement started to falter some.

I can't claim to have ever been particularly bothered by the team's name.  I know that gives me a bad mark, if it doesn't actually make me a bad name. But I'm not going to rewrite my history.

I anticipate I'll still be interested and root for the Washington NFL team this fall, if they actually play games. 

So be it.

Today's Kids Are Needy?

The Post has a piece by a two-profession couple with 8 and 12 year old daughters, on their struggles to handle home schooling while still doing their professions.  In order to minimize interruptions they designate one parent as the duty parent for the morning and the other one in the afternoon.  The kids are supposed to go to the duty parent for their questions and needs. 

One day (not a big sample) they did a spreadsheet showing how many times the daughters interrupted the duty parent's work. I found the graph of the results to be incredible.

I know when I was young, maybe 8, I'd get bored and nag at mom.  But that wouldn't last long--it wasn't tolerated and I'd find something to do or play with.  Now I wasn't being home schooled; I'd understand that makes a difference.  But still...

I suppose it's just an example of how child rearing has changed over 70 years--parents and children are much closer now.  I know that.  But it still strikes me in my gut as being needy.

The Infection Chain

As I've said before, the progress of the pandemic seemsto have been from the most mobile and therefore whitest and wealthiest people, seeding various countries, then within the country a progression down the chain from most connected to least connected with the most vulnerable. Think of it as a forest fire, with the progression being governed by which unburned spots are most closely connected to burning spots, and the most flammable material in each spot.

So California and Washington had early cases. The Northeast was hard hit. Then things seemed tosubside for a bit, but there were warning cases in meat packing and nursing homes, etc. 

Then things moved south and west, as the networks hooked up to the vulnerable.  This is my explanation for California as well--the first wave there was the mobile upper class, the new wave is hitting Latinos and African Americans.

There's been a learning curve, particularly in the health professions, so we're in better shape thanwe were on May 1, though we now realize we weren't in as good shape as we thought then.

Expanding CFAP to More Crops

USDA announced additional crops would be eligible for payments under CFAP.  Here's the revised list of specialty crops.


I pity the FSA offices which have to implement this.  I remember what ASCS got into the first time the disaster program was expanded to cover specialty crops, though I don't remember when it was.  1986, 1988? maybe. KCMO slapped together a quick software package to allow us to take applications and compute the payments. But we had no experience with the crops which meant some stumbles in the software, and even more stumbles in administering the program in the counties.

The only good thing is acreage reporting is almost done, at least in theory, but if you look at the FSA Facebook page you know the employees are feeling the strain.

How To Deal With the Powerful

Politico has a piece on a presentation by the CIA person who usually briefs the President.

One of the things which fascinate me is what Erving Goffman called "The Presentation of Self inEvery Day Life".  It's a classic. Part of it is how you deal with a person more powerful/higher ranking than yourself.

I like to apply this to the relationship between slave and master, or to use today's language, the enslaved person and the enslaver.

The Case for an Operations VP Candidate

As Biden's lead in the polls grows, it seems to me there's less importance for him to choose a VP candidate who can add enthusiasm to the ticket, specifically a black or Latino.  The closer we get to the election it seems the more we can count on his opponent to provide enthusiasm.

So maybe there's a case to be made to go in another direction--a VP who would be great at improving the way the government operates.  That would represent a long-term investment in government capability, which is the prerequisite if liberals are to succeed in their ambitions for government programs.

If you accept the premise, it seems to me that two possibilities stand out: Elizabeth Warren and Gina Raimondo. The case for Warren seems obvious to me; the case for Raimondo can be built based on her track record, specifically with covid-19, as laid out in this Politico piece.

[update--to clarify "operations VP"--it's the sort of role Biden performed with the stimulus act, and Gore performed with Clinton (though I'm not really a fan of Gore's effort.

Writing and Statues

On twitter a historian denied any obligation for historians to fight for the preservation of statues.  That got me thinking about the difference between statues and historical artifacts--mostly written ones, but also the sort of things which wind up in museums.  Some thoughts:

• as I wrote yesterday, raising a statue is an act of power, signaling the influence of the group behind it and their importance in the community (I'm assuming that usually only a minority which feels strongly are pushing a statue). A statue is an assertion of meaning occupying a public space.  The power embodied in a statue ebbs and becomes stale as the years pass, but the statue is always there, somehow imposing on our attention to public matters. Though as I've written, statues can fade into the general landscape, no longer noticed by the majority of the public; a thorn only to a minority with reason to be aggrieved.
• written artifacts can sometimes be more obnoxious than any statue--consider Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  But such writings cannot intrude themselves on our notice once the context of their creation is gone.  I mean, presumably most Germans were somewhat aware of Mein Kampf by 1938 or so, to that extent it was a signal of the power of Hitler and the Nazis, but post 1945 it's stuck on library shelves, fodder only for historians and a few on the far right. 
• other artifacts, say quilts or old episodes of I Love Lucy, also lose their power and their meaning as the years increase since the time of creation.

So what is the justification for a historian not to fight for preservation of a status in its original setting? To me the key is the occupation of a public space. It's reasonable and no violation of a historians pledge to the past to say that statues should be removed from public spaces.  And just as historians have no obligation to preserve all buildings they have no obligation to preserve all statues somewhere..  Every statue has some value, considered as an object with history, but we can't preserve everything.

Power, Statues, and Signalling

An article on the Columbus statue in front of Union Station in DC this morning provokes these thoughts:

The ability to erect statues is a signal of the power of the people behind the movement.  In the case of Union Station, it was the power of the Knights of Columbus back in the day.

In the case of statues commemorating Confederate generals, it was the power of upper class white Southern women (UCWSW).

In the case of naming forts it was likely the power of the Congressional delegation in the state, responding perhaps to UCWSW.

Now, the ability to take down statues is a signal of the power of the Black Lives Matter movement (construed broadly), power to move the needle and gain white support.

[Updated: by signaling I mean the action is not very important by itself to most people, is quite important to some.  For leaders of the movement, it's a way to gain influence.  If the KofC can persuade the powerful to emplace this statue, they must be listened to when they want X, Y or Z. If BLM can persuade the powerful to change the MS flag, then they must be listened to on other issues.  When non-legal processes are used, there's an element of physical fear involved as well, as there was in dumping the tea in Boston Harbor.]