State of the Discussion

How high the floor and how to deliver it are open for discussion; anyone who argues against a floor is arguing for the pitchforks and torches to come out eventually.
Quite right. What are the other Cain's Laws?

I distinctly remember GOP complaints (not just the WH imbecile*) that any insurance that is not a net win for the person insured is a scam (and those who pay more in than they get out are losers). In particular, if one does not get out (much) more out of social security/medicare/medicaid etc. than one has paid in, the system is a rip-off and thus needs to be abolished (iirc in favor of a private system that ideally guarantees that only those that run it get anything out of it, i.e. overhead should be at minimum 100%).
*I first mistyped that as imbevil ;-)

Required disability insurance for seamen, too. But not farmers, or artisans, or merchants, or anyone else.
I'm sure a general public interest can be construed in there - most foreign trade was conducted by sea - but why just them?
Perhaps it was too difficult to assure an adequate number of people willing to be cod fishermen. That kind of insurance may have been seen as necessary to keep a major export industry going strong. No need for the carrot for other jobs.

My personal take on what we typically call "welfare" programs - food stamps, Medicaid, etc. - is that they are best thought of as insurance.
Everybody pays in, but you generally only get a return if you need it. And needing it generally means you've come into some kind of bad luck. Or maybe done something stupid, but I'll leave it to a better mind than mine to try to define the fine line between whether bad luck and folly.
Most of pay for car insurance, health insurance, liability and fire insurance on our homes if we have them.
If you're lucky, you never get a dime back. But you're a dope if you complain, because sometimes you're not lucky.
And yeah, if sending Jeff Bezos a couple hundred bucks a month for groceries is somehow gonna make folks quite complaining about it all, I can live with that.
As long as he pays in at a rate comparable to his wealth and income. ;)

If you are going to give out food stamps, make sure that you cut some for Jeff Bezos.
That's actually not a bad idea. We have a hodgepodge of programs to support poor people, especially children, to attempt to get them enough to eat. They're better than nothing. But expensive to run, overlapping in places, and less than effective.
We can afford, as a country, to simply give every person enough food to live on. Maybe not prime rib every day, maybe not the junk food they love, but enough decent quality food for them to live on. Quite possibly for less money than we now spend, not least because we ditch the overhead of determining eligibility. If you're breathing, you're eligible.
Now most likely people like Bezos and Musk, or you and me for that matter, won't bother to collect the benefit. We can eat basically what we like without it. But still, it's worth doing.
Not that I'm optimistic about getting such a thing enacted. But the fact that it's not politically popular doesn't negate it's merits.

"Academics are supposed to discover and promote counterintuitive, nonobvious ideas."
There's an old trope among (non-academic) lawyers that lawyering amounts to trying to prove that your ideas are NOT original. This may be outdated now, in light of the cavalier attitude toward precedent exhibited by the SCROTUS. (R for Roberts).
I am entirely with lj on this:

Jesus was mad at those who stayed in the middle, and on that point (and probably that point alone) am I Christ-like.

Y'all may have gathered as much from my rant on "deMAGAfication". No steroids involved there, BTW.
Wikipedia tells me this Ilya Somin character is a young (age 52) Jewish immigrant from the old USSR, which surely explains some of his views. But I gather he's not as opposed to Christianist fascism as I am. His lukewarm attitude toward "intuition" is, IMO, nothing but elitist arrogance.
Especially when it comes to justice (as opposed to The Law), intuition is all we have. Even if you intuit a deity whose edicts are not to be questioned or even interpreted, you -- a human being living among other human beings -- rely on "intuition" to define justice, or more specifically INjustice. Intuition is malleable, of course, and reshaping people's intuition is the overarching goal of the Vast Right-Wing Noise Machine.
This coming Saturday, August 23, there is planned a "March for Jesus" in Boston. Dollars to donuts, this is part of the VRWNM campaign to shape public intuition. If I had it in my power, I'd put up a huge billboard of my "What Color Is YOUR Jesus?" meme on the Common, just for the day. It would be interesting to see whether the marchers intuit a Scandinavian White, a Deportable Brown, or an Artificial Orange Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
--TP
PS: I am pleased to see that russell correctly calls it "Revelation" -- no "s".

How the "general welfare" clause's interpretation has changed since the Constitution was written, and the impacts those changes have had on the country.
Evolution of "General Welfare" Clause

To piggy back on JanieM's criticism there: It has obviously not occurred to him -- or if it has, he declines to believe it -- that "benefitting someone in some way" might well benefit everyone else too, even if only indirectly. But then, some people don't seem to think that a happier, healthier populace could possibly be good for everyone. (For what definition of "good," he might ask...)
The general sense that I get of him and many other libertarianish folks is that every time they look at a public good, they start trying to convert it into smaller piles of private goods for which they can find deserving owners. It's the oft-quoted Thatcher bit about there being no such thing as society.

There's a lot to unpack in this post, it goes in so many directions. Or maybe more accurately, affords so many points of entry and engagement.
Some random thoughts.
The tariff thing is idiotic. Not because tariffs are always or inevitably bad, but because they are being applied to correct a problem (trade imbalance) that is not necessarily a problem in the first place. And as the article calls out, they are being applied without any particular insight into their real effects. And, applied chaotically and unpredictably, which is anathema for business planning.
Shorter me: these guys have no idea WTF they are about. Other than perhaps setting the stage for case-by-case exceptions, shakedowns basically, in exchange for favors.
Which would be in character for the folks involved.
I though this, from Somin, was... odd:

Academics are supposed to discover and promote counterintuitive, nonobvious ideas.

Really? I guess there's a sense in which this could be so - doing actual research and investigation into a subject could lead you to conclusions that are non-obvious to the casual observer. But it seems like that should be a possible (but not necessary) outcome of academic work, rather than its point.
Maybe Somin just like being contrarian.
I first came across the message in Revelation to the Laodicean church in a Sunday sermon when I was a kid. Our minister was exhorting his pretty comfortable middle- to upper-middle-class suburban Long Island Episcopal flock to be a bit more serious in their pursuit of spiritual life.
I'm not sure how all of that was received by the congregation, to be honest. The phrase "OK, but can we please just go to lunch now?" may have crossed a few minds. But for whatever reason I still remember it, 50 odd years later.
And what I still take away from it is what I think of as the moral hazard of privilege. Or, if privilege is too strong or loaded a word, of being comfortable. Of having enough, and not having that be at any particular risk.
I think about that a lot lately. Especially as we see the violence (both threatened and real) and persecution being unleashed on anyone in our country who is "suspiciously brown".
The folks behind this are basically lawless. We can't really rely on the law and the courts to curb what are flagrant abuses of power, because the courts are often deferential to them, and even when they aren't, these guys just don't give a shit.
At some point it may be - likely will be, unless there is some meaningful change in regime - for ordinary people to intervene. In whatever way.
Which will not be without risk. Risk of jail, risk of violence, risk of harrassment in a variety of forms. It's not an idle threat, as anyone old enough to remember e.g. the J Edgar days will recall.
Which puts people who live in some degree of comfort - material sufficiency and safety - in a difficult place. Because they have something to lose.
Cue "Bobbie McGee" here.
Our privilege (those of us that have it, which definitely includes me) can make cowards of us.
And that thought weighs on my mind a lot lately.
I see that I still appear to be in the grip of steroid inspired verbosity, so I'll end there.

The town is likely to lose several million dollars in state money
This may actually be the salient point. Here, it isn't a matter of losing state money (which may be earmarked for stuff they aren't enthusiastic about anyway). Instead, it's fines charged to the town. New Expenses!
The dollar amount may be a wash. But the difference in perception between "stop giving us money (with strings)" and "charge us money" is apparently quite significant.

Maybe you're having a (perfectly understandable) inflammatory reaction to the state of the nation, too.
This. Also, I have known several near and dear who have had Roid Rage - it's quite entertaining when you realise what it is. Anyway, IMO, you have no need whatsoever for more concision. What you say is always worth listening to - your jaundiced and despairing viewpoint is perfectly understandable, though nobody who knows you at all would wish it on you. This too shall pass (we devoutly hope).

They went nowhere because the Town Council basically said "We don't have funds to pay the fines for non-compliance."
In my case, the no-comply locals are basically taking the "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach.
The town is likely to lose several million dollars in state money. Competitive grants, mostly, for which we will no longer qualify. And we're likely to spend a lot of money - I don't know how much, but it will be a sum measured in legal billable hours - arguing with the state in court about it all.
Where is the money for legal fees gonna come from? :: shrug ::
The legality of the law has already been established at the MA Supreme Court. Precedent has already been set by other towns that have challenged all of this on similar grounds and lost. We don't really have a leg to stand on.
The state isn't really asking a lot, here. They want the town to identify some areas where people can build multi-family housing without pulling a special permit. The areas the town government had identified are areas where there is already multi-family housing, or which are already zoned for mixed use. There is no requirement to actually build anything, we just have to say *if* somebody wants to build multi-family housing in a particular area, someday, they don't have to pull a special permit to do so.
NIMBY strikes again.

Re the link in nous's 3:12...
I'm on the author's side, mostly. So I'll get my initial childish response out of the way: if you're going to argue numbers, for pity's sake format the numbers so they're legible. My normal response when given a table that I have to copy-and-paste into a different piece of software to read conveniently is to just stop there.
Given the title of the linked piece -- "The Humanities as Service Departments: Facing the Budget Logic" -- the author never got to the point I was expecting. What I was looking for was a reconciliation of two facts. On the one side, the author's table showing that A&H generated large amounts of tuition revenue at little expense. On the other, the administration's assertion that A&H departments had relatively few students in their degree programs. He put the conclusion right there in the title, but apparently couldn't bring himself to say it.
It seems to me that A&H faculty should (a) have recognized that they were turning into service departments and (b) have been proactive on the question of how to be better service departments (while retaining their historical roles). The goal ought to be that when someone proposes A&H cuts, the non-A&H faculty scream.
Long ago when I was a TA at the University of Texas, the state legislature proposed what was basically doing away with us and requiring full-time faculty to do the work. I went down to the Capitol the day they had public hearings. Two faculty members killed the bill. First, the head of the math department testified that with his current staff, the dept would have to drop the services they were providing to the engineering school: calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations classes. Second, the head of the engineering college testified that he would pretty much have to shut down if that happened because his faculty would go elsewhere rather than teach the math classes. Worth noting that the math department already segregated students. Both linear algebra and differential equations were taught in two versions, one for engineering students and one for people outside of engineering.

Maybe you're having a (perfectly understandable) inflammatory reaction to the state of the nation, too. I figure that's a factor in my long (for me) comments.

Two quick websites for getting a sense of the geography of income inequality in major US cities:
https://inequality.stanford.edu/income-segregation-maps
These show increases in concentration of rich and poor over time, but the levels of concentration vary by city.
https://inequality.media.mit.edu/#
This one looks not just at neighborhood median income, but tracks the places that people of varying economic backgrounds visit in several cities to show the geography of daily association.
Hard to say if these patterns persist outside of major metropolitan areas. I imagine that smaller data sets lead to greater uncertainty of results.

What that Mets hat does is show an interest in breaking down that barrier. And a refusal to sneer at the people he's talking to.
I'd like to try to be very clear about what I'm saying about Brooks.
I fully believe he wears the Mets hat in an effort to break through social barriers. And who knows, perhaps his conversations about the Mets do expand into topics of greater substance vis a vis our various public and social dilemnas. And no, I'm not being sarcastic in saying that.
And no, I don't believe Brooks is sneering at the people he's talking to, or at anyone in particular.
My issue with Brooks is that he seems to feel that the world's problems can be resolved through improvements in our personal, private virtue.
Want to break through the socio-economic barriers that divide the college-educated professionals from their working class counter-parties?
Sign up for one of the volunteer opportunities on the Weavers' website. In my area, those opportunities are (1) lead playtimes for homeless kids who are living in area shelters and (2) drive seniors to appointments.
Those are great things to do. I have done, and continue to do, similar things that somehow don't appear on his list - put in hours at a local food bank, provide overnight chaperoning for homeless families camping out in my church. Cook meals at a local homeless shelter. And so on.
What I can tell you from my experience with these things is that they *do not solve* the systemic problems that cause families to be homeless, or seniors to be without any form of useful public transportation. For example.
They do not prompt wealthy college-educated folks living in islands of privilege to welcome cops, welders, nurses, and carpenters into their neighborhoods. They certainly and absolutely *DO NOT* prompt those people to do anything that would make lower-income housing more available in their communities, because that would put the assessed values of their own lovely homes at risk. And if the schools in their areas are not up to snuff, they quite often respond by sending their kids to private school, rather than take whatever steps would be needed to improve the local public schools.
Without going into the gory details of my own situation, I can tell you that I live this stuff. Live around it, live with it. The class divide, as Brooks notes, is quite real. But signing up for a two-hour shift playing with homeless kids is not going to solve it. Driving somebody's grandma to her haircut is not going to solve it. Those are more than fine things to do, let's all go do our share of them.
But they don't address the root causes of the class divide. The class divide is fundamentally about money and power - who has it, what can they do with it. Me, a retired white software guy with basically enough money living in a nice suburban bedroom community going and playing with homeless kids at a local shelter *does not house that kids family*. It *does not magically provide that kids family with the resources to get them the hell out of the shelter*.
Right?
And Brooks' digs at the Democrats in the "segregation" piece are unwelcome, and frankly less than honest. The educational "red state surge" is frankly not all that. Some states have improved from really bad to somewhere between middling and pretty good, which is an outstanding result. And that's it. And education in some other red states absolutely suck, as does education in some blue states, or parts of some blue states. And education in some red states is actually exemplary, as it is in some blue states. It doesn't appear to have all that much to do with whether you're in a red state or blue state.
Brooks talks about working people feeling that have no power. And he's not wrong, most of the power in this country belongs to wealthy educated folks. How did that happen?
In this country, historically, the way that working people have gained any measure of political and social power was through organization. Organized labor. Unions.
I don't see Brooks supporting organized labor. I don't see him calling out for greater labor participation in corporate governance. I don't see him calling out for employee ownership or other forms of meaningful equity in businesses.
Those are the things that give working people power.
I don't see Brooks calling for any of the kinds of systemic changes that would actually address the "class divide" by *making the fucking divide smaller*. On the contrary, his history is one of supporting the kinds of (R) policies that exacerbate the problem.
And his solution is for all of us to volunteer to do helpful stuff in our local community to "bridge the divide" and "rebuild social trust".
More meaningful forms of creating social trust, IMO, would be relaxing local zoning rules to make affordable housing in your neighborhood available. Would be supporting institutions like the CFPB so that fucking predatory financial institutions would stop ripping people off. Would be finding a sane way to fund public education so that It's not just rich towns that get good schools. Would be supporting organized labor and employee participation in equity ownership and governance.
I think David Brooks is a decent person. I think he intends good things. And I think he's incapable of challenging the assumptions and policies of the conservative institutions that have been his professional home, and whose policies are largely responsible for the social ills he laments.
He's a nice man. And he doesn't get - seems incapable of getting - the connection between the things he has spent his life endorsing, and the problems he clearly sees. So, his solution to things is for everyone to be nicer, volunteer, and talk to each other.
If you want working people to have more power, support the things that have been the source of that power, historically.
If you want people of different educational and social backgrounds to mix, make it possible for people with less-privileged backgrounds to live in places where the more-privileged people live.
If you want to build social trust, address the gazillion forms of corruption that distort and undermine people's trust in public institutions. Start with making sure that everybody gets to vote, and that their votes aren't neutered by partisan gerrymandering - which of course means walking back yet another bullshit SCOTUS decision.
Trust is built on hearing and respecting each person's voice. It's built on, not just the perception, but the tangible reality of fairness. And not just while you're driving a nice old lady to her haircut, although by all means do it there as well. But also in the voting booth, in the workplace, in the doctor's office. In people's dealings with banks and insurance companies. In the immigration office. Right?
The kind of almost cartoonish venality and abuse of power we see with Trump has been building for decades, and it's the modern conservative movement, in which Brooks is knee-deep, that planned for it, laid the groundwork for it, built the institutions to make it happen.
He won't see that. Doesn't seem capable of seeing that. Where's Kamala's education plan, he asks. It's the (D)'s fault.
Yeah, no it's not. But he'll never own that. So I don't care for him. Don't hate him, don't wish him ill. But don't think he's got much to offer us. For all the reaons enumerated at probably tiresome length above.
And with all of that, I think I've been sufficiently unkind to David Brooks for one day. He's a nice man, in the context of all the shit that is going on he is very, very, very far from being public enemy #1. I appreciate his lack of cynicism and his instinct toward moderation.
The current state of the nation has me in kind of dark place. Thank you for indulging my rant, apparently I needed to get some crap off my chest. I promise I'll do my best to cheer up.
Night all.

I'd like to hear what nous and wj have to say about Newsom's counter-gerrymander initiative.
I strongly supported the initiative that set up our nonpartisan redistricting commission. I really, really hate to see anything that weakens it.
That said, like nous I will vote for this one-time, Congressional districts only, change. It's tragic that it has come to this. But the world is how it is, and the alternatives are worse. As long as nobody tries to make it a permanent change, or extends it to state legislative districts, I expect it to pass.

russell: I hear you.
Thanks GFTNC.
My comments about Brooks were probably off-topic, and probably not that constructive or useful. I'm sure I do him a disservice, at least to some degree.
I'm generally disgusted with the state of public life here in this country at the moment, and I think it colors my thoughts about a lot of things. Disgusted doesn't quite cover it - angry, broken-hearted, feeling generally helpless to know how to counter the widespread and gob-smacking folly and senseless cruelty that we are obliged to live with, and under, at the moment.
It sucks.
I appreciate your more generous thoughts about Brooks' work, it reminds me to look for the positive.
Better days, y'all.

GftNC - the analysis of how the humanities and social sciences actually end up subsidizing STEM are not in the review synopsis that I linked, but rather in the book being reviewed, so here's another link that gets at those details some more (esp. in section 2):
https://profession.mla.org/the-humanities-as-service-departments-facing-the-budget-logic/
There's a lot more analysis like this in The Great Mistake.
Tony P. - I find it tragic that Newsom has opted to put redistricting up to a vote, but I fully understand and accept the necessity of it, and will vote in support of it when it comes to that. This all could have been avoided had the Roberts Court done the right thing and allowed the Wisconsin gerrymandered districting to be struck down. It's fully on Roberts' shoulders that partisan redistricting is considered to be allowed under the constitution. Likewise, their systematic erosion of voter protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has allowed the GOP to attempt this latest scheme to disenfranchise opposition voters by wasting their votes on non-competitive districts and empowering their own voters in competitive districts.
I'd gladly vote to go back to non-partisan redistricting after the fact if this GOP power grab is unsuccessful. I don't want to disenfranchise Republican voters, but neither am I going to get caught up on principle while the other side cheats to win.
I don't know if it will be enough to break the fall, but taking the high road is conceding the contest, and that cannot happen.