State of the Discussion

It seems to me that the Mets hat thing is a way of trying to experience goodwill and a human connection between groups who may not have many other interests or passions in common
Yes, I think that is correct. And yes, I agree that trying to make connections and find common ground are good things. And yes, I understand that the motivations of the callow art student in the Pulp song are quite different.
In general, I think Brooks is a decent person.
But I also think there is, probably inevitably, a limit to the degree to which someone from Brooks' background and in Brooks' position can understand and speak for the experience and interests of people who do not share his advantages. Mets hat or not.
Brooks tends to frame things in moralizing terms. I think he does that honestly, because it seems like his personal values and interests lead him to think in those categories. Which I don't fault him for, exactly, but I think it causes him to miss the mark in a lot of ways. And it also makes him seem like something of a scold. To me, anyway.
His argument often seems to be "Gee, we should be better people". Well, OK, yeah, I guess we should all be better people. But transforming the general character of the public doesn't seem like a particularly practical approach to what are actually, in many cases, systemic problems. Problems amenable to concrete solutions, solutions that you could actually implement. And that would actually make people's lives better in ways that would, in turn, make it a hell of a lot easier to be "better people".
It's easier to be virtuous when your larder is full.
And that's probably enough from me about Brooks. He strikes me as a basically decent person. I just can't think of anything I've read of his that seemed especially useful. And, intentional or not, I personally find what I take to be the moralizing tone of his work kind of condescending.
Just my opinion, offered more or less as an aside.

So much fascinating info, thank you all! It's quite clear that my impression of the relevant southern states' educational standards was seriously out of date. I haven't yet read nous's Reichman link on CA higher education, but I will certainly do so - I'm particularly interested in the Humanities subsidising STEM aspect.
The story about wearing a Mets hat to break the ice with "ordinary people" just makes me think of that Pulp song. You know the one.
russell, I think Common People is a brilliant song, but to me it describes a different phenomenon. The girl in it is acting as a tourist, sampling the ways and customs of an utterly foreign culture. It seems to me that the Mets hat thing is a way of trying to experience goodwill and a human connection between groups who may not have many other interests or passions in common (but who may find they do when they start to talk). I think it is like when people from completely different backgrounds and experiences love the same music, and can talk passionately and knowledgeably about it. The ability to do this, and to value it, seems to me to be a good thing.

Isn't what you are describing fallout from Prop 13, which capped property taxes, which was the mechanism that funded education?
Prop 13 contributed, certainly. But, as nous notes, it's far from the whole story.
Property taxes are a big part of funding primary and secondary education. But they aren't the only source. Also, the problem of reduced results has occurred even in places where there is relatively rapid turnover of home ownership. (Taxes weren't capped by Prop 13. It just froze assessments of property values, on which taxes are based, until the property changes hands.)
Funding for the University of California, and for the state university system, is totally unrelated to property taxes. It comes directly from the state budget, and from whatever tuition gets charged to make up the shortfalls. We could provide more funding from the state budget, and so reduce tuition. We chose, and continue to choose, not to.

These are the priorities of politicians on the left.
Isn't what you are describing fallout from Prop 13, which capped property taxes, which was the mechanism that funded education? And Prop 13 didn't have anything to do with the left and had everything to do with people who labeled themselves as conservatives.

I'd be interested to know whether this is a well known phenomenon
The NAEP stats.
To the degree that the states Brooks calls out have made good progress in their educational outcomes, I applaud them. No snark. Well done, I hope they continue. In general they've advanced from pretty bad to somewhere between not-so-bad and not bad at all, which is actually a big jump, and worth celebrating.
Good job. Keep it up.
If you look at the NAEP stuff you'll see that educational outcomes are not an especially blue state / red state thing. California doesn't do very well, Utah does. IMO it's more about the culture and history of the place, and what resources they bring to the table. Money, yes, but also an investment in the future mindset.
At the risk of coming off like a coastal elitist snob, I note that my adopted home state of Massachusetts does quite well. We aren't smarter than people in other states, we just have a long history of valuing education. A lot of the folks who settled the area were literate people, unusually so for their time. They valued education, and so they created pretty good schools. That culture persisted, and thus we do well on the NAEP stuff.
I'm glad to see that some states that historically have lagged in that area are taking steps to improve. Well done, carry on.
As an aside, I'll also say that Brooks annoys me. Perennially. I think he's sincere and I appreciate what I see as a real lack of cynicism. He seems to honestly be trying to make best sense of the world and his own life.
But I also think he's remarkably clueless. The story about wearing a Mets hat to break the ice with "ordinary people" just makes me think of that Pulp song. You know the one.
I mean, he is genuinely a lifelong fan of the Mets, so by all means wear the hat. And if that helps break the ice, go for it. But I just don't think he's able to see outside of his white-shoe bubble.
He's just not a guy I think I need moral direction from. And that seems to be his primary way of framing his thoughts.
I hope Mr. Brooks will forgive me if I misjudge him here.
And that's enough stream of consciousness from me for one night.

With Brooks, you have to take care with any evidence he offers. Yes, there is a Southern surge, but the states lauded (specifically Mississippi and Alabama) have historically been on the bottom of any ranking, so I suspect that them moving up is partly statistical. The data is from the NEAP, which only checks students in the 4th, 8th and 12th grade and the bulk of the surge comes from a leap in 4th grade, important to be sure, but it also corresponds with increased federal mandates on testing from No Child left behind in 2002 under Bush and the revised act signed by Obama. Mississippi didn't even have any state level assessments until it joined the PARCC for one year and then opted out.
The NEAP uses a weighted average of subgroups and gives only 4 classifications, Advanced, Proficient, Basic and Below Basic. Now, it's a good thing that more students from Below Basic are lifted up. However, there is both a ceiling effect. Again, I don't think that this means the Southern Surge is all bullshit, but it's not like Mississippi and Alabama are becoming powerhouses, it is that they are becoming more like other states.
The last thing is that the Southern Surge can be partially attributed to the pandemic. Every place had massive drops because of the pandemic. I'm not surprised that states with less developed educational infrastructure (like Mississippi and Alabama) could get up more quickly. The Southern Surge is attributable to Mississippi and Alabama moving up in the rankings, but doesn't really talk about how and why other states dropped to make that happen.
I don't think that the Southern Surge is all hype, I've been reading a lot about the 'Science of Reading' approach, which replaces the Balanced Literacy approach and seems to have made a big difference in these cases. But I suspect that Southern states have had an advantage in shifting to a new system because the teachers in the old system were often under-trained or left to their own devices, so it has been easier to introduce it.

class in America.
Yes, once upon a time there was a greater mix of higher-educated white collar professionals and non-college-grad working people in neighborhoods, schools, and social organizations.
It was like that when I was a kid. Doctors, lawyers, business executives lived in the same neighborhoods as cops, plumbers, local mom-n-pop business owners. Their kids went to the same schools, familes went to the same churches, etc. The doctors and lawyers might live in nicer houses, but still in the same town and general area. So, a while back, but not that far. In living memory, mine at least.
What's different? Among other things, higher-educated white collar professionals make a sh*t-ton more money relative to their non-college-grad working class than they did back then.
This is from 2015 and EPI are a bunch of commies, of course, but it gets the idea across.
Higher-educated white collar professionals used to pay more in taxes. Non-college-educated working people used to be unionized a lot more than they are now.
I don't mean to be reductionist about it, but the increased income gap goes a long way to explaining the class-based segregation Brooks talks about. IMO.
Maybe instead of waxing nostalgic about the loss of our common values and social bonds, we could tax wealthy people a little more and support organized labor.
Sometimes things actually are as simple as that.
As far as the summit goes, it's just another episode in the Donald and Vlad show as far as I can tell. Trump clearly admires Putin, he adores bullies, autocrats, and "tough guys", and Putin checks all of those boxes. He's a Putin wanna-be, and if there is a more despicable role model on the face of the planet than Vladimir Putin, I'm at a loss as to who that might be.
I have no idea how things are going to play out in Ukraine, Canada and the EU will likely have something to say about it all, and Ukraine by god most certainly will. But it's pretty clear to me that Trump is not going to do anything of significance to hinder Putin's desire to annex eastern Ukraine for now, after which he will likely rebuild a bit and return for the rest of the meal.
Trump somehow combines the venality and corruption of Nixon with a breathtaking ignorance and incompetence all his own. He is a deeply stupid man. It's remarkable.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the outcome. Far less bad than I had expected. Far less.
I read some griping about Putin being "honored" by being welcomed on US soil. Putin may feel honored (fat chance!). But will anyone else be impressed? Will anyone change their opinion of Putin? No and No.

Putin left Trump virtually speechless....given Trump's gonoerrhea mouth, quite a feat if you ask me. I wonder if the KGB hacked the Epstein files.
That Ukrainians will continue to die trying to deal with these monsters is absolutely enraging.

Spent some time off and on this week adding a first cut illumination correction to the toy software for processing images of documents.
Original snapshot taken with a handheld iPad here.
Result of correcting various geometry impairments -- curled pages, perspective, orientation -- here.
First cut at doing some illumination correction here. The approach I've taken seems to do well at correcting problems caused purely by the light source being off to the side (darker sections where page curl has the surface normal vector pointing away from the light, brighter where the normal vector is pointing towards the light). The shadow in the lower right corner is from the iPad and will require a different approach to identify and correct. Or more likely, when I get closer to production I'll arrange things so the camera doesn't cast shadows.

Side note on "smart" and "posh": Bryan Ferry is an interesting case. Working class, but attended that crucible of 60s upward (and other directions) mobility, art school. Fine Art degree, then teaching til music career. Clearly an aesthete by temperament (easily seen), he wears Savile Row suits and hunts to hounds (was married for 22 years to an upper class girl who hunted from the time she was 12). Of course this does not make him "posh", but really in today's world it's hard to miss his identification.
All this being said, it is good to be reminded that when I pronounce on "normal usage" in the UK, it is coming from a particular place of (as I said before) age, education and social class. I must remember this when giving such confident declarations in the future!

wj: to make your strategy work properly it requires generating an actual random choice.
PRO TIP: #2 pencils used for multiple-choice have 6 sides: using a pen to impress 'dots' in the wood, 1 dot, 2 dots, etc for the sides. Need a random number? Roll the pencil. Fast and easy.
Computer tests mess that up, dammit.

my perception of American English has both "crafty" and "cunning" as something that is intentionally deceptive
When my step-son was born, my wife's Scottish then mother-in-law took a look at him and said "What a cunning child!".
One of the most interesting things to me in language is that way that words in languages that are more or less imposed on people - English on the Scots, in this case - get re-purposed to suit local meanings.
See also "overstand" in Jamaican patois, which re-tools "understand" to have a richer meaning, one that is not completely captured by any standard English word (except perhaps "grok").

I think both smart and clever are secondary terms, the base meaning of smart was painful or cutting (Ouch, that smarts!), while cleaver was probably to split up or divide (hence meat cleaver), which constrasts with dull, so both point out the ability to break things down into smaller parts. I imagine in a closed village society, being intelligent could be disfavored a bit, because it would be disruptive.

How fascinating, I have just looked up smart in the OED and the main usage for e.g. clothes seems to be "Attractively neat and stylish, relatively formal". It's true, I can imagine if someone asks what you think of an outfit, and you don't know them all that well and want to reassure them you might say "very smart", but generally speaking most people I know would use it in the way following, which is "Fashionable, elegant, sophisticated; belonging to or associated with fashionable or high society." Like so much else in UK English, it looks like it might be more class-coded than I realised.
And just before those two usages, despite what I have said before, the following: "Clever, intelligent, knowledgeable; capable, adept; quick at learning, responding intelligently to a situation, etc.; astute, shrewd; (of an action) characterized by cleverness or astuteness." In my experience this usage is rare here, although possibly more common as a result of American movies, literature etc.

Interestingly, none of you seem to be talking about "intelligent" as opposed to the other two words. It's hard for me to get my head round, because as I say "smart" is not often used that way here - except in the case of something like "street smarts".
I would say that most people in the UK who think about such things would think of "clever" and "intelligent" as almost synonyms, and that both (while frequently connected with education and knowledge) could possibly be present in exceptional people who have had almost no access to either, but who have what I think nous is calling "wits". And then, there are people who are particularly gifted in certain ways, for example with an innate understanding of mechanical (or spatial) processes. At least, that's how I understand the usual usage in the UK, but I may be extrapolating from my own and my (i.e. of age, education, social class) cohort's conception. nous's definitions @05.56 strike me more as something to do with personality, or turn of mind, rather than actual intellectual ability.
So maybe all our understanding of these terms is idiosyncratic....how fascinating this stuff is.

For me, the difference between "smart" and "clever" is mostly about scale. Smart operates on a larger scale than clever. The phrase "too clever for their own good" is illustrative. In computer programming, it usually means things like really obscure code that exploits some odd aspect of the programming language to make this routine run faster today, but that will turn out to be a maintenance nightmare in months/years to come.

I've never been to either the Hearst Castle or the Carnegie Mansion in NYC. Are they really as dismally dark as they look in the photographs? Or is that an artifact of no-flash policies and old slow films?
Or alternatively, has four decades of living in Colorado where almost everywhere has huge expanses of glass spoiled me?