|
|
|
|
bEMA International
Washington, D.C. 20020
|
|
|
Cooperation, Collaboration, Communication, Coordination, Community
engagement, and Partnering (C5&P) |
|
|
A 501
(c) 3 organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 17, 2023
Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristen M. Crowley to Advise Department of Homeland Security August 17, 2023
Food Insecurity. Is this information getting out in all languages? USDA Discrimination Claims. Section 22007 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
A compensation system has been structured. Is it effective?
Considerations:
1. Each layer for the several types of entities\organizations contracted to administrator this program as a nonprofit, or private sector entity:
a. National Administrator,
b. Four regional hubs,
c. Organizational subcontractors,
d. Cooperators,
as a layer of funding.
2. Fiscal agent or fiscal sponsorship role for many of those filing for compensation?
3. Of 100%, 10% (National Administrator) deducted, 10% (Regional Hubs), 10% Organizational subcontractors, 10% Coooperators from the top-down have deducted possible 40% from the total budgeted with a REMAINDER of 60% for those filing for compensation.
Interesting figures.
BEMA International
Section 22007 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
The Act requires USDA to contract with nongovernmental program administrators to coordinate the delivery of a national program of financial assistance to impacted farmers, ranchers, or forest landowners. The Department has begun the contracting process.
The program will involve several types of entities/organizations:
- A national administrator to oversee the program; this entity will contract with USDA.
- Four regional hubs to provide outreach and technical assistance within their regions and process applications for financial assistance consistently and efficiently. These entities will contract with USDA.
- Organizational subcontractors: the regional hub vendors are strongly encouraged to partner/subcontract with organizations with experience in agriculture, that work with and represent producers and that have a relationship with USDA. These partners/subcontractors may conduct outreach and assist potential applicants with the financial assistance application process.
- Cooperators to conduct outreach and ensure potential applicants are informed about the program and have the opportunity to apply.
The United States of America. "1960: "Harvest of Shame"" on YouTube. “We used to own our slaves, now we just rent them.”
Rudy, Thanks for the memory/
This
statement in the video is enough……….
“We used to own our slaves, now we just rent them.”
Are we apologetic in what we do? No.
CDS
 Watch the entire original broadcast of one
of the most celebrated documentaries of all time, 1960's "Harvest
of Shame," in which Edward R. Murrow exposed the plight of America's
farm workers.
This
is a Black, Latino, First Nation, a whole community issue.
This
is still an issue in my lifetime in the 21st Century.
|
Rudy Arredondo
President/CEO/Founder
Latino Farmers & Ranchers International, Inc.
1231-B Good Hope Road, S. E.
Washington, DC 20020
|
|
||||||||
|
“Our lives are not our own. We are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.” David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas
|
|
Wednesday, August 16, 2023
Change the Paradigm. Idealized Design. Systems Thinking, and and a Model for Outlier Innovation, by Dr. Russell Ackoff
Idealized Design, Systems Thinking, and
and a Model for Outlier Innovation, by Dr. Russell Ackoff
INNOVATION
Idealized Design: How Bell Labs Imagined — and Created — the Telephone System of the Future
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/idealized-design-how-bell-labs-imagined-and-created-the-telephone-system-of-the-future/
In their book, Idealized Design: How to Solve Tomorrow’s Crisis…Today (Wharton School Publishing), authors Russell L. Ackoff, Jason Magidson and Herbert J. Addison build upon a simple notion. They argue that, “the way to get to the best outcome is to imagine what the ideal solution would be and then work backward to where you are today.” This excerpt, based on Ackoff’s experience, shows how the process worked at Bell Labs in the 1950s.
Idealized design is a way of thinking about change that is deceptively simple to state: In solving problems of virtually any kind, the way to get the best outcome is to imagine what the ideal solution would be and then work backward to where you are today. This ensures that you do not erect imaginary obstacles before you even know what the ideal is.
Nothing better illustrates the power of this idea in action than the experience that one of the authors, Russell L. Ackoff, had many years ago. The experience both enlightened him and proved to him that the idea could facilitate profound change in a major corporation. To relate the experience, this author “steps forward”:
In every life, there are seminal experiences that exert their influence on a great deal of experience that follows. The one that is responsible for this book took place in 1951. I was then a member of the faculty of Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland, Ohio. (It had not yet merged with Western Reserve University.) On a consulting trip to New York, I drove down to Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, to see Peter Meyers, a manager whom I’d met when he had come to Case to recruit promising graduate students for the labs.
It so happened that on the day of my visit he and other managers had been summoned to an important — but last-minute — conference by the vice president of Bell Labs. After some hesitation, Peter Meyers said, “Why don’t you come with me?” I pointed out it was a meeting for section heads and I was not even an employee of the labs. He said that no one would know the difference.
We arrived at a typical classroom that held about forty people and was almost full. The vice president was not there yet. Nor did he appear on time. This was very unusual. He was a big man, extroverted, and voluble. He could not get near someone without punching, pinching, pushing, hugging, or pounding them on the back.
About ten minutes after the hour, the door to the room squeaked open. All eyes turned to it, and there he was. He was obviously very upset. He was a pasty gray and bent over as he slowly shuffled down the aisle without a word to anyone. He mounted the platform, stood behind the podium, put his elbows on it, and held his head in his two hands, looking down.
The room was dead silent. Finally, he looked up and in an uncharacteristically meek voice said, “Gentlemen, the telephone system of the United States was destroyed last night.” Then he looked down again.The room broke out in a hubbub of whispered conversations saying that his statement was not true. Many in the room had used a phone that morning. The vice president looked up and said, “You don’t believe the system was destroyed last night, do you? Some of you probably used the phone this morning, didn’t you?” Most of the heads in the room shook with assent. The vice president began to tremble with rage. He shouted, “The telephone system was destroyed last night and you had better believe it. If you don’t by noon, you’ll be fired.”
He then looked down again. “What was wrong with the VP?” everyone was asking each other. But because discretion is the better part of valor where one’s boss is involved, the whispers stopped as all waited for further word from him and an explanation of his erratic behavior.
The vice president looked up and glowered at the group. Then he suddenly straightened up, his normal color seemed to return, and he broke out in a great big belly laugh. All those in the room also began to laugh. They did not know why they were laughing, but it released the tension that his unusual behavior had created. It began to dawn on all of us that his behavior had been a trick.
After the laughter died down, he said in his normal voice with his normal demeanor, “What was that all about? Well, in the last issue of the Scientific American,” he said, “there was an article that said that these laboratories are the best industrially based R&D laboratories in the world. I agreed, but it got me thinking.”He reached into the inside pocket of his jacket and withdrew a piece of paper and said, “I’ve made a list of those contributions to the development of telephonic communications that I believe have earned us this reputation. Before I share my list with you, I’d like your opinions. What do you think are the most important contributions we have ever made to this development?”
Almost every hand in the room went up. He called on one of those with a raised hand. He said, “The dial.” “Right,” said the vice president. “This is certainly one of the most important. Do any of you know when we introduced the dial?” One in the room volunteered a date in the 1930s. The vice president agreed. He then asked, “When was it developed?” No one knew.
He said he had not known either but had looked it up before he came to the meeting. He said, “It was before 1900.” We were surprised to say the least. He pressed on, asking for another candidate. The next one offered was multiplexing, a way of transmitting multiple conversations simultaneously over one wire. This yielded an enormous increase in the capacity of AT&T’s network. “Right,” the vice president repeated. He once again asked when it has been introduced. Someone knew it had been between the two world wars. The vice president confirmed this and asked, “When was it invented?” No one knew. Again he revealed that it was before 1900.
He asked for one more suggestion. The person he called on said, “The coaxial cable that connected the United States and Great Britain.” The vice president agreed and asked when it had been built. Someone knew: 1882.“Doesn’t it strike you as odd,” he said, “that the three most important contributions this laboratory has ever made to telephonic communications were made beofre any of you were born? What have you been doing?” he asked. “I’ll tell you,” he said. “You have been improving the parts of the system taken separately, but you have not significantly improved the system as a whole. The deficiency,” he said, “is not your’s but mine. We’ve had the wrong research-and-development strategy. We’ve been focusing on improving parts of the system rather than focusing on the system as a whole. As a result, we have been improving the parts, but not the whole. We have got to restart by focusing on desiging the whole and then designing parts that fit it rather than vice versa. Therefore, gentlemen, we are going to begin by designing the system with which we would replace the existing system right now if we were free to replace it with whatever system we wanted, subject to only two not-very-restrictive constraints.
“First,” he continued, “let me explain why we will focus on what we want right now, not out five or ten years. Why? Because we know that where we say today we would like to be five years from now is not where we will want to be when we get there. Things will happen between now and then that will affect our goals and objectives. By focusing on what we want right now, we can eliminate that potential source of error.”
“Second, why remove practically all constraints? Because if we don’t know what we would do now if we could do whatever we wanted, how can we know what to do when we can’t do everything we want? If we knew what we would do with virtually no constraints, we could modify it, if necessary, to become feasible and adapt it to changing internal and external conditions as time goes on.”
“Now, here are the two constraints. First, technological feasibility. This means we cannot use any but currently available knowledge. No science fiction. We can’t replace the phone with mental telepathy. The second constraint,” he said, was that “the system we design must be operationally viable. What does that mean? Because we are not changing the environment, it means that the system must be able to function and survive in the current environment. For example, it will have to obey current laws and regulations.”
The vice president then said, “This group is too large to operate as a single group. Therefore, I am going to divide you into six subgroups of about six each, each with responsibility for a subsystem. Each group will select a representative to meet with other representatives at least once a week to discuss interactions. Let me explain.“Each group will be able to design whatever it wants as long as it does not affect any other group’s design. If what a group wants to do does affect one or more other groups’ designs, it must get their agreement before it can be included in their design. I can tell you in advance,” he said, “that the groups will do little that does not affect other groups. At the end of the year,” he said, “I want to see one completely integrated system design, not six subsystem designs. I don’t even want to know what the individual teams came up with. Is that clear?” he asked.
He created a “long lines” (inter-city communication) team, a “short lines” (within city communication) team, a switching stations team, two other teams, and finally the telephone set team, on which I found myself with my friend Peter Meyers.
When the meeting was adjourned, the teams immediately gathered so that their members got to know each other. When Peter introduced me to the other members of our team, they thought it very funny that an “outsider” had successfully invaded their meeting. But, they said, the vice president had not precluded their use of “outsiders.” Therefore, they invited me to participate in the effort. As a result, I spent a great deal of time in the next year with that team. What a learning experience it was!
The first meeting took place after lunch that day. The seven of us, six from the labs and I, met in a small breakout room. After the amenities, we discussed where we should begin. We decided to list the properties we wanted a telephone to have. We noted suggestions on a pad mounted on an easel. The first few were as follows:
- Every call I receive is intended for me — no wrong numbers.
- I want to know who is calling before I answer the phone so I need not answer it if I don’t want to speak to the caller.
- A phone I can use with no hands.
- A phone that comes with me wherever I am, not one I have to go to in a fixed location.
But we ran dry. We noted, however, that we had designed nothing yet, so decided to try our hands at it. We decided to select the first property on our list — no wrong numbers — and see if we could design a phone that met this requirement.
At this point, I almost destroyed my credibility in the group by pointing out that there were two kinds of wrong numbers. One consisted of having the right number in one’s head but dialing it incorrectly. The other consisted of having the wrong number in one’s head and dialing it correctly. One member of the group immediately pointed out that if one had the wrong number in one’s head and dialed it incorrectly, one might get the right number. Fortunately, the group decided this was too rare to be of concern but that the percentage of wrong numbers of each type was of concern.
Here I was able to save credibility a bit because I knew the head of the psychology department at the labs. I called him using the phone in the room. After the amendities, I asked him if he had ever done any work on wrong numbers. He exploded at the end of the line. It was minutes before I could understand him. It turned out that he had been doing work on wrong numbers for a number of years, and I was the first one to ask him about it. He wanted to unload all of his results on me. I had to convince him otherwise. After he calmed down, I learned that four out of five wrong numbers were the result of incorrectly dialing the right number in one’s head. We decided to go to work on this.
An amazing thing happened; in less than an hour, we found a way, conceptually, to reduce, if not eliminate, such errors. We replaced the dial by — what did not exist at that time — a small handheld calculator. There were ten keys, one for each digit, a register, and a red key in the lower-right corner. The phone was to be used as follows. Leaving the phone “on the hook,” one would put into the phone the number one wanted to call by pressing the appropriate buttons. These numbers would appear on the register. If these numbers, on examination, appear to be correct, one would lift the receiver and the whole number would go through at once. If the number on the register was wrong, one would press the red button in the corner. This would clear the phone, and one would start over.We were very pleased with ourselves, but nevertheless we recognized that we did not know whether such a phone was technologically feasible. (The handheld calculator was not yet available.) Therefore, we called a department of the lab that worked on miniaturization and asked for technical help. They sent two young men down to our meeting. They appeared to be fresh out of school, still wearing their intellectual diapers.
As we described what we were trying to do, they began to whisper to each other and were soon more absorbed in their private conversation than in what we were saying. This bothered us, but such behavior was not entirely unexpected in an R&D laboratory. However, they suddenly got up and hurried out of the room with no explanation. We were furious but decided to let it pass for the time being. We went on to another property.
Several weeks later, the young men appeared at one of our sessions looking sheepish and apologetic. They said, “You probably wondered why we ran out on you when we were here last.” We told them this was an understatement. They explained, “We were very excited by what you were doing but not for the reasons you were. We did not want to take the time to explain. That wrong-number stuff was not as interesting as the buttons.”
They went on, “We went back and built a push-button telephone and tested it on a very large number of people. It turns out to take about twelve seconds less to put in seven digits by pushing buttons than turning a dial, and additional time is saved by not occupying a line until after the number is put in and the receiver is picked up. The combined saving in time is worth millions to AT&T,” they said, “so we have started a project to develop that telephone. We have given it a code name that is being kept secret for now.” They looked around the room to be sure no one was listening and then told us, “Touch tone.”
Before the year was over, the groups had established the technological feasibility of each of our many design features. The group of design teams continued to work after I was no longer a participant, and they anticipated every change in the telephone system, except two, that has appeared since then. Among these are touch-tone phones, consumer ownership of phones, call waiting, call forwarding, voice mail, caller ID, conference calls, speaker phones, speed dialing of numbers in memory, and mobile phones. They did not anticipate photography by the phone or an Internet connection.
The impact of the design we produced was greater than the impact of any other effort to change a system that I had ever seen. As a result, I began to adapt and modify the procedure to fit such other applications that we describe in this book. As you will see, its use has been extensive and is still growing.
This experience is a convincing example of how idealized design can literally move mountains of change. However, applying the process involves not only discarding old mindsets that inhibit creative thinking but knowing the steps that we have learned work best in applying it. The book is intended to take you through the process with many examples of different organizations in different industries.
A special offer from Wharton School Publishing
National Security Interest. U.S. Farm Bill. Get involved. Your voice is needed.
BEMA International. We are not into politics, but policy and decision-making.
Policy and decision-making Issues of basic human rights
within the realm of disaster recovery providing
- Shelter
- Water
- Food
These are national security issues that we in BEMA International (Black Emergency Managers Association International) consider our baseline for inclusion and equity for all.
The U.S. Farm Bill is a vital part of our national and global security interests. Food and water are vital resources to the health (mental & physical), prevention and recovery from disease (epidemics and global pandemics), and the well-being of our most important asset local community members, and especially our next generation leaders.
‘BEMA’ is a platform. A platform for our entire membership to get involved locally, regionally, nationally, and globally. We ask our members to get involved locally in issues in their communities that have a wider range of impacts. Addressing those basic needs using problem-solving and emergency management planning before, during, and after a crisis occurs.
Awareness, education, and training in emergency management phases for sheltering (recovery\homelessness), water (the entire water system), and food (food workers, local farmers, and producers. From the seed, to the plate, returning to the soil). With local farmers and workers as the key to any community for the health and well-being of all in the community for access to nutritious food.
We ask our members to get involved.
Bring in new thoughts and perspectives for all members of the ‘whole community’ to be involved and engaged.
Awareness and education are starting points. Be aware, get educated.
Be aware of
- basic human rights and basic needs (shelter, water, and food) to global goals such
as the
- Ten Principles of the Global Compact to the
- Sustainable Development Goals.
The U.S. Farm Bill has not only an impact in communities within the U.S., but a global impact to global communities.
Even Native\First Nation communities are a nation within a nation are greatly impacted.
Charles D. Sharp
|
|
|
https://www.rollcall.com/2023/07/18/house-democrats-look-for-lines-in-the-sand-on-farm-bill/  House
Democrats look for ‘lines in the sand’ on farm bill Partisan fights expected on
food stamps, climate issues  House
Democrats are considering how firmly to dig in on farm bill issues they care
about as they anticipate partisan fights over food stamps, climate
change and other matters as lawmakers approach the expiration of the current
law.
Rep. Bennie
Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the House Agriculture and
Nutrition Task Force that held its final forum July 13, said there are
limits to how far the Democrats are willing to compromise as they seek to
influence the bill that sets farm policy for about five years. The
current law expires Sept. 30.
"If we're going to get a farm
bill, it has to be inclusive. At some point, we're going to have to work
together," he said Thursday.
“I think now is the time for Democrats
to look seriously at what our values are as Democrats,” he said, adding that
there is particular concern “for those individuals who don’t have the
lobbyists or other things but they are Americans. They deserve just and fair
consideration. There are a lot of Democrats who are not going to support a
farm bill that is punitive.”
Rep. Jim
McGovern, D-Mass., a task
force member and a longtime advocate for policies to deal with hunger,
was blunter about a clash between Democrats and Republicans over policy and
priorities. "Democrats, he said, “need to be on the offensive and
drawing lines in the sand now. We can’t settle for the lesser of two
evils," he said Thursday.
The task force plans
The House and Senate Agriculture
committees have begun drafting sections of their respective reauthorization
bills but full drafts are unlikely to be released before September, leaving
few legislative days to finish the job.
None
of the committee leaders has publicly said the current law will need to be
extended to provide more time.
The farm bill addresses a broad
range of food and agriculture issues and getting the mix right has
usually resulted in bipartisan floor support for the bill.
But
that isn't always the case. The 2014 and 2018 House farm bills encountered
trouble on the floor during Republican majorities because of GOP
disputes and Democratic opposition to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program provisions. The bills eventually passed the House, and
negotiations with the Senate produced compromise bills that passed both
chambers.
House Agriculture Chairman Glenn
"GT" Thompson who has pledged to
deliver a bipartisan bill, said the Democratic recommendations will join
recommendations from other sources the committee has received.
“I’m thrilled any time somebody is
talking about the farm bill whether it is this stealth operation that they
are doing or I read clips about members on both sides of the aisle who are
doing their own listening sessions back in their districts,” Thompson said
last Thursday. “At some point, I’m pretty certain they will communicate with
the committee, which will be good.”
McGovern said he is
particularly concerned that Republicans will push for more changes
to SNAP after Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., won concessions in the debt ceiling
package on expansion of work requirements for able-bodied adults without
dependents. As a result, state agencies have begun to phase in an increase
in the number of people whose food aid benefits will be limited to three
months out of every 36 months unless they can document they work 80 hours a
month or that they are getting work training.
The
debt ceiling agreement steadily ratchets up the age of adults who have to
meet the new requirements, to those through the age of 55 in fiscal 2025. The
requirements currently apply to those through the age of 49, but the age will
begin rising by Sept. 30. The changes expire in fiscal 2030.
“Nutrition is the largest tranche of
the farm bill, but if you target that you have poked the bear,” Bennie
Thompson said.
The Congressional Budget Office’s
projection of baseline funds for a new farm bill estimates SNAP will account
for more than 80 percent of mandatory spending over 10 years.
The
program serves 40 million adults and children a month in urban and rural
areas. SNAP advocates are also calling for legislation that would expand access
to healthier foods for participants and end a ban that bars people with
drug felony convictions from qualifying for food benefits.
Rep. Jahana
Hayes, D-Conn., said she wants an innovative farm bill that
is “forward thinking, that builds capacity and infuses the pipeline and
builds the next step so we are not putting Band-Aids on generational
problems.”
Hayes
and McGovern also are members of the House Agriculture Committee and
will be part of the markup of a draft farm bill.
Task force members also said they
are worried by Republican discussions about repurposing nearly $20 billion
provided for Agriculture Department conservation programs to address climate
issues. Hayes said it should not be a fight to have climate-smart
practices in agriculture. Farmers in her district tell her they want to
incorporate those practices into their operations, but need funding to cover
the upfront costs, she said.
There was a moment of call-and-response
as Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental
Working Group, identified two priorities.
“I hope we can all agree that none of
us will support a farm bill that makes one more person hungry. Can I get an
amen?” he asked, receiving agreement.
“All of us should oppose a farm bill
that cuts any of the climate-smart funding included in the Inflation
Reduction Act. Can I get an amen for that, too?” Faber asked,
referring to the 2022 package that provided billions in conservation
funding.
The United
Farm Workers, a union that represents agricultural workers, said workers
should be eligible for financial aid when natural disasters disrupt farm
operations and put them out of work for prolonged periods. Elvis Rodriguez, a
National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association intern at the
union, said Hurricane Charley destroyed his family’s Florida home in 2004 and
upended their lives. He said they received no help in rebuilding, leaving him
to feel that they are constantly struggling to survive.
Bennie
Thompson said another goal should be “create a path” for new
farmers, particularly those in urban operations, to participate in farm and
conservation programs.
Dania Davy, director of land retention
and advocacy at the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, also called
for a farm bill that gives Black and minority farmers tools and funding to
overcome the cumulative effects of discrimination in Agriculture Department
lending programs. Davy said directing 13 percent of conservation funding to
Black farmers and landowners would help them prepare to enter private carbon
or environmental markets which are seen as potential 21st century revenue
generators for farmers.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
New innovative ideas, approaches, and methodology needed to save the planet for Fiction to become Reality for the 21 st Century and beyond ...
-
Why get a new smartphone when it may only be a matter of clearing and transferring files to your tablet, laptop, or PC. Backup and storing p...
-
https://optiongray.com/ham-vs-satellite-phones/ Off-Grid Communications – HAM Radio vs. Satellite Phones Written by Option Gray i...
Environmental Justice
Recovery\Homeless Shelters. U.S.
