Actually, I don't generally think much of the state cause I do what I want regardless of the law because I'm generally not a malicious person. — DifferentiatingEgg

A pleasant, law-abiding person in a more-or-less democratic state can live without constantly worrying about the State and its malevolent agents. I also don't think about the State that much, either. I'm reasonably pleasant, and mostly law-abiding.

There are times when being pleasant and law-abiding are not enough. During periods of political upheaval, activities which are legal may become verboten, such as when Red Scares and various witch hunts have used the machinery of the state. Unionizing is legal, as are strikes. That doesn't prevent the State from employing police forces to help break a strike. Being a member of the Communist Party USA has never been illegal, but being a member could end one's career in Hollywood, government, or academia (during periods of anti-communist fervor).

The State might, but not always, object to disruptions of public order. For some odd reason, the state mostly put up with the disruptions of the Occupy Wall Street movement, probably because it was fairly good theater and no threat to business. ACT-UP got a much more negative response. It was also good theater, but the actors were diseased pariahs (to use one of their phrases) and was aimed at Big Pharma as well as at the State. j

Campus demonstrations against Israel's war on Palestinians (their phrase) have irritated agents and quasi-agents of the state. Campus demonstrations in 2025 are interfering with US policy no more than campus demonstrations interfered with US policy in 1970, but the State doesn't like it -- then or now. So, call in the police. State (and quasi-state) authorities don't like being contradicted, argued with, demonstrated against, or denounced.

It doesn't matter that the net effect of most demonstrations are pretty much zero.

Yes, the state enforces legal rights in land, which rights it has created itself. — bert1

When the United States was a brand new nation, it had possession of the land between the Atlantic coast and the Mississippi River, but it didn't really occupy all that land. State occupation of this territory had to await settlers. The Northwest Territory Ordinance was passed in 1787 and established the legal basis for occupation by settlers, and the eventual creation of territories and then states. Wisconsin, the most "northwest" of the NW Territory, wasn't entered into the Union until 1848.

The open land was surveyed, packaged, and sold. The Homestead Act of 1862 aimed at settling the much larger expanse of open land west of the Mississippi. Settlers (citizens or immigrants intending to stay) could acquire 160 acres of free land by living on it for 5 years and improving it.

According to the historian Oscar Handlin, the land-system of medieval Europe was much different. The 'state' might be no more than the local lord (strong man). There was no open land: peasants had developed an unofficial but binding system of land-and-labor sharing which prevailed for centuries, and was usually (but not always) productive enough to maintain a steady population of crop producers.

In the 18th century, for not altogether well understood reasons, the population of Europe started to grow and the old system of land and labor sharing proved insufficient, resulting in surplus population beyond its means to support. Then what? Westward Ho across the ocean to the unsettled land of the New World (unsettled by Europeans, that is).

Handlin's books on immigration treat the wrenching dislocation of people moving from nations where land, labor, and social mobility were fixed to the socially fluid conditions in cities and on the frontier.

There's not enough room! All the bits are taken aren't they? — bert1

There are many bits that have not been taken by private individuals, but the collection of bits -- taken or not -- are pretty much under the control of a state. And states jealously guard their bits.

I'm not sure why you blame the state more than you blame private interests. — bert1

Probably because @DifferentiatingEgg is "state-averse". He sees the state mainly as a burden upon the people, rather than a creation of the population. The state-averse do not see the predations of private individuals and corporations.

I can't tell what you are driving at.

There are two Declarations with which I am familiar. One is the Alma Ata Declaration on Health in 1978; the other is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations in 1948.

True enough, and beneficially, the text and thrust of the declarations has been copied into numerous national documents around the world. Why is that a problem?

The problem isn't that nothing "new" is created; the problem is that the text and thrust of the declarations is honored in the breach more than in the observance.

Here are links to the two Declarations:

1948 Paris Declaration of Human Rights

The 1978 Alma Ata Declaration on Health

These declarations are comprehensive, ideal, and sound -- except that the circumstances in so many places make the chances of success in many places like a snowball's chance in hell.

Still, the declarations are worthwhile, if only they are put into effect.

The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You are talking about the UK. Similar problems occur in the US. But given the state's dominance, what is the solution?

Ineffective, abusive, and unresponsive behavior by agencies may be built-in by design. The behavior of ostensibly non-political agencies, such as disability, unemployment services, or food inspections may be strongly flavored by past or current political party agendas.

Socially conservative politicians tend to be suspicious of working class peoples claims, for instance. It's an old example, but in the 1980s, AIDS patients who were often in very bad health found it difficult to claim disability benefits, thanks to the frank hostility of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Or disputed unemployment claims tend to be resolved against the worker.

What Donald Trump is doing in Washington is aimed at crippling government programs, many of which deliver pretty obvious public goods, so that they will not be able to deliver effective services in the future, or function at all.

My point is that the cure for ineffective state services is political. At other times, it was political will that produced good-to-excellent state services. Elections have consequences.

"Administrative hearings" are not judicial, as I understand them. They are civil proceedings held by agencies. For instance, if you challenge a denial of unemployment compensation, a hearing will be held by the state labor department. Needless to say, the hearing officers are generally not on the claimant's side, but facts of the matter can still be established.

On the other hand the matter could be handled by a "small-claims court" -- a judicial unit that handles small cases, where people often represent themselves on both sides. Hearings are short, judgement is is usually swift. It's a low cost option.

Should the government suspect that some recipients have received too much in benefits, there are two obvious remedies:

The first is to improve the controls within the benefit-granting agency. Recipients are not 'guilty' of agency errors, but they might still be liable for repayment.

The second is to claw back the over-payment following due process. For instance, notifying the recipients of probable over-payment; providing a period during which the recipients can contest the probable-overpayment, and then an administrative hearing to determine whether an over-payment did occur. If it did, then the government can claw back the over-payment all at once or over time, whichever causes the least reasonable disruption to recipients' finances.

In the United States, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) allows for seizure of any assets from those identified by law enforcement as having ill-gotten gains. It is carried out through court orders. It allows the government to more efficiently dismantle organized crime*** operations. There aren't many limitations on what can be seized, so it is critical to government legal creditability that the RICO case be very solid.

RICO would not apply to government payment systems which might result in over-payment in most cases, unless there was a 'conspiracy' to obtain inflated benefits.

***As mafia operator Bill Bonanno said, "Crime doesn't pay UNLESS it's organized."

I've ridden in 3 different Teslas owned by LYFT drivers. Don't ask me why someone who can afford a Tesla is driving for LYFT, but nonetheless... The first Tesla was a major disappointment. I thought it would be luxurious before I got in, but the back seat literally felt utilitarian. The driver said she sometimes used the self-driving feature on freeway straight-aways. It worked, more or less, but it could not manage in-city driving.

The second Tesla was a SUV model and it measured up to expectations. The driver told me that the self-driving feature cost $5000+, on top of $65,000 for the vehicle. He didn't have it.

Tesla #3 was the sedan with the glass roof. The driver hadn't been through a winter with it, so he didn't know how the glass roof would be in the winter--cold, snow, ice... In terms of crash-safety, I felt as exposed as I would in a convertible, layered safety glass or not. Tesla sells optional sun-shades, because sun + glass roof = heat, so what's the point?

The Chevy Volt Bolt is about as nice as a Tesla and much cheaper (rode in one once). The range of the Bolt battery is rated at 260 miles (418k), so it is best used in an urban setting where total daily driving distances are relatively low. A trip from Minneapolis to Chicago (400+ miles) might require two recharge stops.

I don't drive, but in my never too humble opinion, Tesla isn't worth the cost. But then, in light of global heating, what car is worth that cost?

How old was Bernie? — ssu

83 -- not that old if you are still in good shape which Bernie seems to be.

At least he is articulately and energetically criticizing Trusk, the corrosive duo--something that few Democrats and no Republicans are doing.

Taking a page from the IWW: Now is the time to fan the flames of discontent!

Worth a try!

One of the worst things Trump has said:

Mr. Trump has claimed since taking office a second time that the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States.

It's rock-bottom bad.

It is nationalist paranoia. It's jingoism*** in the extreme. Is the EU a phantom in a capitalist nightmare of competition? (I thought competition was supposed to be a universal capitalist good. No?) It is irrational hostility towards our best friends. (Yes, I know, nations don't have friends -- they have interests. So: hostility towards the EU is not in our national interest.) It's crude thinking. But then, nobody has ever accused Trump of being refined. It's the sort of statement Trump fishes out of his gold toilet.



***The term "jingoism" comes from a British music-hall ditty during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878.

When people started viewing other people as a disposable workforce in all areas of life — Christoffer

The Nazis called them "useless eaters".

Thinking of a nation as a business is as wrong as thinking of a business as a family. The scales are totally unmatched; the purposes are disparate; and only families are natural -- man + woman = children.

This means that the well-being of the citizens is at the heart of a healthy economy and national identity. Good health care, good social securities, good security from crime, good infrastructure, good funding of culture, taking care of the sick, weak and old etc. — Christoffer

Absolutely!

They simply aren't wise enough to be able to improve society for the people. — Christoffer

Politicians actually have been able to improve society for the people on numerous occasions. Examples: Social security law; auto safety laws; civil rights laws. So have cement workers, civil engineers, farmers, agronomists, weather forecasters, people who dance in the chorus line, professors, elementary school teachers, et al.

The US is pretty much doomed to fall as a nation eventually. Under its own weight of misunderstandings of what a nation and society actually is and what it needs. — Christoffer

Well, Christoffer, in the fullness of time all nations are doomed; everyone is going to die, much sooner than they imagined, quite often. Ultimately, in the very long run, all our efforts are futile. What we do, how we do it, to whom, and why DOES MATTER a great deal in the short run--this year, this decade, this century.

One of the lessons of history is that things go haywire much of the time. But people carry on. They get things done, bring the crops in, cook meals, make clothing, keep society humming along.

All the "states rights" stuff is what? — Paine

"States Rights", to my mind, is all about any mandate from the Federal government -- SCOTUS, COTUS, OR POTUS that seems to correct inequity / discrimination / institutional disadvantage propagated by one group of more powerful citizens against less powerful citizens. States Rights was the shield raised against SCOTUS's Brown vs. The Board of Education which declared racial segregation in education unconstitutional.

Southern states are the natural home of states rights, but a liberal northern state might start thinking about states rights if a liberal northern ox is gored by the feds.

Who or what are you quoting from? It is not in the graph page you posted. — Paine

The address on which the graph is located is https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-do/agency/us-department-of-education/ The graph is located a ways down the page.

Edit to add: You were not quoting but speaking for yourself? — Paine

Speaking for my self, of course, but reflecting various pieces I've read. For instance Geoffrey Canada's program for young children in Harlem New York City shows both how language deficits affect performance in primary school, and how the deficits can be prevented IF intervention begins very early. Numerous reports show wealthier school districts performing better than poorer ones.

It looks like the plan to shut down the Department of Education is going forward. It was funny to hear the T complain about U.S. school rankings during the State of the Union address when he has already killed the means of knowing what those numbers are (as I reported earlier.), — Paine

The budget for the Department of Education was $268 B at the end of the Biden Administration. HERE IS A GRAPH of how the money was spent. $161B, the largest expenditure, is for Federal Student Aid. Elementary and secondary education gets $83B, and $21B goes for special education and rehabilitation services.

States and local governments, on the other hand, spend 756 billion on education in 2021. I do not know whether that is an over- or -under estimation.

One thing is certain: K-12 education is a vital function, but it is also a long-standing can of worms. What different segments of the American population want from K-12 education in the thousands of school districts varies a lot. A lot of money is spent by schools, but results tend to be disappointing for many parents.

My sense is that perhaps 10% to 20% of parents get the kind of education they want for their children: Children in the top 10% of income earning families tend to live in better environments where the benefits of good performance in school and higher education are not open to question. They tend to go to (usually public) schools where the ethos of education is more or less common property.

Children in progressively lower categories of income tend to do progressively worse. Of course there are some significant exceptions, but as a general trend, this seems to be the case.

If schools are not performing well, this probably isn't something the Department of Education can do much about.

There is some research that indicates 5 to 6 year old students who arrive in the first grade with significant deficits in pre-school development (all sorts of skills) are usually not able to successfully overcome the negative consequences of poor home environments in the years ahead, especially in verbal skills. This group is a minority of students one hopes, but it does seem to be getting larger.

Remediating the environments in which children are raised is difficult because it means changing the lives of parents, and that may just not be practically possible. It would take a Defense Department-sized federal department of fairy godmothers with magic wands to solve the problem.

Project Management — Paine

Here's an old comedy bit

I kept clear of the news for some time, ever since the US electio — Amity

I look at the news every day, but I think it was Emerson -- might have been Thoreau -- who said that reading a newspaper once a month was sufficient. Times have changed so maybe catching up on the news once a week is enough.

I find that a lot of the news that the New York Times sees fit to print is not all that useful. Outrage here, stocks up there, self-obsessed Hollywood remains self-obsessed, war goes badly, the poor getting poorer in lock step with the rich getting richer, etc. Too many zebras to keep track of.

Then why don't the US citizens who don't want this... do something about it? — Christoffer

An entirely appropriate question.

Massive mobilization (spontaneous / organized) takes time, focus, and energy. Trump began his current maladministration only on 1/20/25--so about 45 days ago. His fast and furious demolition activities affect opponents the same way zebra stripes confuse lions: It's hard to lock on a target. It takes 10 times as much energy to resist the government as the government spends fucking us over.

"Elections have consequences!" Once in power, all sorts of advantages are acquired. This is true for Democrats and liberals as well as Republicans and reactionaries.

Trump is a hateful bastard surrounded by goons and morons and we can count on them making things progressively worse. We don't want "worse" but we are going to get it. We'd better not waste it. The opposition must capitalize on and fan the flames of discontent. The opposition must "get into every space" -- be it bars, union halls, churches, schools, neighborhood organizations, civic clubs, board rooms, congressional offices, the sidewalks surrounding the White House, the pentagon -- EVERYWHERE. Be polite as necessary, but not more so. Be as forceful as required, and not less so. Hammer the message home, again and again, about the very real damage Donald Trump et al are doing to the body politic and institutions of government.

Should the opposition take my sage advice, it won't produce results overnight. It needs to produce significant results by November 3, 2026 -- the next congressional election. And November 3, '26 is not the end game. Trump must not attempt to run for a third term and J. D. Vance must be tarred with the same brush as Trump. Maybe more tar and hotter. He's not as close to death as Donald.

There is, of course, no guarantee that anyone will take my sage advice. Perhaps the opposition will fold up, dig a hole, and bury itself in it. Perhaps Donald Trump will bring about full-fledged fascism. Bad things can and do happen to good people.

when the South Korean President tried to go unconstitutional, the Army just refused to obey his orders — Ludwig V

In a top-down response, the military could refuse to obey an illegal order. It could conceivably refuse to obey a legal but unpalatable order. We don't have enough contemporary experience to judge how likely it is that the military will reject a civilian-originated order. The military does have some autonomy; after all, they are THE FORCE, so who would stop them?

Do you think it will work out in the end? — Ludwig V

It will absolutely "work out" in the end, for better or worse. I don't know whether bad resolution will come about or not, or how bad "bad" might be.

I hope there are some people who are thinking long-term about this — Ludwig V

There are people who have been thinking about this. Unfortunately, the thinkers haven't been in a position to do much about it. For example: Noam Chomsky has been thinking about this stuff for a long time, but Chomsky has never run a campaign to put his observations into effect -- or to even suggest what 'we the people' listening to him ought to do. Some scholars of fascism have published important books; it's up to the readers to act, or not.

if authoritarianism sets in, there will be some dreadful decisions to be made by each citizen? — Ludwig V

It has already set in, and not just in the last few weeks. We have seen drift towards authoritarianism in various parts of our culture. For instance, there are workplaces that are run under authoritarian terms. Police forces are more and less authoritarian depending on the demographic being policed. United States History reveals numerous episodes of tyranny conducted by supposedly democratic agents and agencies. On the list: enslavement of Africans; genocide of aboriginal people; the entire confederacy; post-reconstruction vengeance on blacks; Jim Crow laws; ruthless suppression of labor and unionism; McCarthyism; COINTELPRO (FBI infiltration and disruption of leftist organizations); Watergate; and on and on.

You are quite right: Citizens will have to make inconvenient to dreadfully difficult decisions. I am grateful that I am old and may die of natural causes before I am asked to make dreadful choices. On the other hand, I might not die quite quick enough.

Revolution, even by force, does not have to be bloody. The force can also be not to comply with what the enforcers of the people in power inflict on them. Just look at Gandhi's revolution — Christoffer

Remember that Gandhi began his non-violent efforts in South Africa in 1906, and in India in 1920, achieving success (in ending British rule of India) in 1947. It took time and on-going efforts. Even fairly small-scale domestic resistance in the United States has been spasmodic, without successfully building any sort of on-going resistance movement.

Between 500,000 and a million people demonstrated against the Vietnam war on November 15, 1969 in Washington (I was there). It was peaceful, orderly, brief and inspiring. President Nixon was reportedly enraged by the demonstrations, but not so disturbed that he moved to end the war (which ended in 1975 in defeat).

The American Civil Rights movement started in 1954 and achieved legislative success in 1968. This was a more sustained, intensive effort than the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Point is: focussed resistance takes years to achieve success. Had anti-Trumpist organizing began in 2015 and continued, we'd be farther ahead in the game. Instead, a lot of us figured Trump was a one-off aberration who was finished well and good in 2020. Alas...

So their power just came down to respect for rule of law? What about the National Guard? — frank

Well, the National Guard is there, along with other parts of the civil and military establishment constituting the government, but it is part of the executive branch of government, which is the branch which might be presently willing to flout the judicial branch.

Some actions of the Trump administration may be unconstitutional, and challenges have been filed in various lower federal courts and they in turn have issued decisions. BUT, that's just the first step in judicial action. Court decisions in these matters will be appealed to higher courts, on up to the top.

Chaos was intended here, and there have been so many questionable actions, so many suits filed, that it is difficult to determine where we are at this point. Trump has currently been in power for only 40 odd days, so clearly his demolition operation is just getting started.

As you know, the Republican Party has majority control of both houses of congress. That's another factor limiting intervention. Not at all incidentally, Trump isn't the only destructive actor here. Senator Mitch McConnell engineered the senate's refusal to take up Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS, claiming it was too late in the administration to act on it--an entirely specious refusal. McConnell helped create the conservative court majority.

Then, of course, the voters who put a conservative majority in both houses of Congress and a loose cannon in the Presidency, are also responsible for where we are.

If the goal is to pave the way for greater authoritarianism, the judicial branch would have to be rendered powerless. — frank

It wouldn't be all that difficult to render the judicial system powerless.

First, the legal system is effective when the people agree to follow it.
Second, the judicial system has (had?) great authority, but it doesn't have great power.

If an executive at the federal or state level decides to carry out unconstitutional acts, a court can not summon the army to force them to cease and desist. The court has federal Marshalls, and possibly local police, and sheriffs. True, there are sanctions, contempt of court declarations, and so on but these substantially depend on willing cooperation.

Some conservatives (Trump allies) have floated the idea that not all court injunctions have to be obeyed. That marks a real crack in the system.

Civil society, law, democracy, reliable money, God, etc. all depend on faith--belief, confidence--in the system. We have had these things because we believed these good things were valid and acted accordingly. If everyone with power to act agrees that a court decision is valid, it will be enforced. If that agreement falls apart, then perhaps it will not be enforced.

At the moment, all sorts of executive actions have taken place in the Federal Government, and a lot of them have been challenged in court. But a court challenge is only one step -- it has to work its way through the appeals system on its way to the SCOTUS. The Supremes may turn out to be supremely disappointing, allowing what were previously unacceptable actions to proceed.

And if the Supremes rule against the executive branch, and the executive branch ignores them, then we're screwed.

Does this morning's meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump / Vance, which amounted to an ugly (and highly undiplomatic ) ambush -- on air, no less -- represent how the administration will respond to representatives of the EU? Emmanuel Macron and Kier Starmer were received in the normal diplomatic manner, as representatives of France and UK, not as representatives of the EU, at least as I saw it.

Is the administration's foreign policy becoming as far outside of previous norms and as bizarre as R. F. Kennedy Jr.'s approach to disease control and prevention? Kennedy cancelled an important meeting where virologists zero in on the strains of influenza to target in the next batch of late 2025 flu vaccine. Kennedy considers the measles outbreak in Texas (among Mennonites) as 'normal'. No, it isn't normal. Measles had been eliminated in the US 25 years ago. And he has NOT backed off the erroneous claim that vaccinations cause autism.

your role as a member of your country to become opposition, distinction, and separateness — kudos

I've always been opposition, distinction, and separateness, chosen and otherwise. I was an early conscientious objector in response to the Vietnam draft; I'm gay; I've never had very high material aspirations; I'm a socialist (covers a lot of territory); I have difficulties with authority figures; now I'm old, on top of everything else.

Rawlsianism is a political and economic theory of justice that advocates for equal rights and opportunities, and prioritizing the well-being of the least advantaged.

I quote this, because I haven't read Rawls (shame shame); just wanted to know if we're on the same page.

Yes, the well-being of the least advantaged. I've spent quite a few years working with this group. The advantaged sector of the population, let's say 20%, are perfectly capable of providing for their own well-being, whatever happens to them (within limits, of course). The bottom 20% has difficulty providing for their basic needs, never mind more expansive 'well-being'. The 60% in between the top and bottom have progressively more difficulty providing for their well-being, as they descend the income ladder.

Part of the problem here is that the pressure to consume stuff is constant and the rewards are often minimal. Not talking about consuming healthy food or basic clothing here, but more buying the glittering plastic schlock which is on offer everywhere all the time.

One of the features of Trump's MAGA (Make America Grotesque Again) is that he is slashing a lot of government programs that aim to assist the least advantaged to achieve--not well-being, but something more than the flat-out minimum. Landing an apartment in public housing, for instance, is a huge step up from living on the street, even if it is a but spartan, The minimal welfare payment for single, childless adults is painfully low, but if one can qualify for other programs (like Medicaid, public housing, and food assistance) it doesn't lead to lavish well-being, but it's better than untended disease, living in a box, and eating from garbage cans.

We CAN do better than this, without having a revolution. It requires a redistribution of wealth -- something the United States has actually done in the past. The main tool is taxation. The wealthy have been taxed at much lower rates in the last 45 years than what they were paying in the 40 years before 1985. Indeed, it is a low tax rate that is partly responsible for the top 20% being as rich as they are.

Wealth can be redistributed downward, and to be honest, there isn't quite enough wealth to satisfy the needs and wants of everyone. One can live a quite decent life on a relatively low income, but it requires a focus on the basics and discipline. The least advantaged people in the United Stats are not suffering because of a lack of focus and sloppy indiscipline -- they are suffering because they do not have anywhere close to enough money to make ends meet.

The Trump administration sent out 5800 emails to agencies today cancelling contracts which provided polio vaccinations, AIDS treatments, Tuberculosis drugs. malaria control and prevention, nutrition programs for underfed mothers and children, and so forth. If that was not bad enough, the emails began with the crass statement that this was for "the convenience of the United States Government"!

The programs of USAID that were cancelled uniformly target urgent medical needs around the world. Cancelling urgent health programs on the other side of the world can come back to bite us. There is nothing about the US that provides eternal protection from Sexually Transmitted Infections, Tuberculosis, AIDS, Polio, and many other not-so-famous fatal infections.

Surveillance and statistical keeping is important, but as a health administrator in Africa pointed out, funds to count the dead were also cut.

New MAGA hat: Make America God Awful

On top of that, it is a good cause this is happening for, as in stopping real racism, so this cashing out on principle turns something good into something wrong — kudos

The left uses the phrase "systemic racism". I'm not fond of the term "systemic". I prefer the idea that racism has been "structured" -- meaning built. Slavery, of course, then decades of Jim Crow law, the Klan and all that.

The modern structuring of racial segregation began during the 1930s --1950s when the Federal government resolved to expand its long-term housing renewal program. Federal backed loans, zoning rules, location of cheap land, covenants, transportation patterns, and yes, racial prejudice, resulted in a major serration of urban / suburban space, with blacks being kept out of suburbs. What blacks received out of these programs were public rental housing. In time the public rental housing became extremely problematic (for the residents, certainly) because administration and maintenance went to hell. The quality of the public housing buildings were really fairly good, but renters do not accumulate equity in their apartments.

So, segregation of urban spaces led to segregation of school systems, since schools have been funded locally out of city / school district property taxes. Increasingly poorer cities could not provide the same level of quality which the increasingly prosperous suburbs could afford. Not initially, but over time some percentage of employment opportunities became distributed into the suburbs. Again. limited transportation options made it difficult for urban residents to conveniently (or even inconveniently) reach these locations.

All this resulted in physically excluding racial minorities from the means to advancement through quality education, equity in property, and improved employment--all factors that can lead to an upward spiral, or in their absence either a downward spiral or flatlining of income growth.

The downward spiral has, in turn, led to a reduction of 'cultural capital' in minority neighborhoods which makes it more difficult to progress economically and socially.

So, to make a long story short, that many people who are minorities are disadvantaged is true. What to do about it? Two approaches: "pull in" and "push in". 'Pull in' is the DEI EO approach: The agency or firm sets a goal for minority presence, and then goes out to find and pull in enough minorities (however defined) to meet the goals. The other approach is to wait for minority group members to agencies or firms they want to work for, and present their credentials, whatever they might be. If there are DEI / EO targets, they might or might not be met.

There are two things people on the job tend to dislike about DEI / EO programs: One is the reality or the suspicion that 'pull in' efforts hired less trained / less capable people. The other disliked feature is the training of existing employees to acquire the "proper attitudes" about minorities. The training programs can be overbearing, heavy handed, tediously obvious, and so on.

So if that doesn't work, what should be done? What should be done is the very difficult job of long-term economic development among disadvantaged people (minority or majority) to enable them (and future generations) to compete in the open markets of society. This is not an easy, quick, or cheap approach, and it is much more complex than just handing out money to people that don't have much of it. It addresses material conditions, not symbolic issues.

How so? What exactly is so expensive about study that you need to be wealthy to do it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

True enough, Youtube videos, second-hand book stores, and the like are affordable, but that isn't the problem. There are a number of barriers: First is the average literacy level. Being literate enough to read a cookbook, a newspaper, or a catalog isn't sufficient to tackle Aristotle and Augustine, never mind Aquinas. Very good habits of study (excellent vocabulary, comprehension, memory, abstract organizational skills, note taking, etc.) are needed, but are not well developed in most high schools.

Time and quiet, unencumbered by working, commuting, chores, socializing, etc. is in short supply. The motivation to study classical materials is quite sensibly absent in most people. Earning a living, child care, household shopping, household chores, etc. come first for most people. Then there is fatigue.

Eating a healthy diet is, as a matter of fact, more expensive and more time consuming than satisfying hunger with highly processed foods. Depending on the retail stores available, starches and fats are cheaper than lean protein, fresh fruits, and vegetables (or frozen and canned). Quite a few people live in areas poorly served by affordable supermarkets. Yes, it's possible to eat an affordable quality diet, but it takes a certain amount of expertise, time, mobility, and just plain availability.

What's the assumption here, that in order to put Aristotle or Dante's teachings to work one must be wealthy? Why? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Get real. Wealth and quality of education are positively correlated. So are wealth and the details of life that allow for intense study while paying for the costs of a pleasant life.

the status and career concerns of the wealthy seem like they are often a barrier to spending time on the intellectual or spiritual life. — Count Timothy von Icarus

True enough -- look at Elon Musk and Donald Trump. On the other hand, the learnéd tend to come from the economically comfort class--about 10-15% of the population--not that everyone in comfortable 15% is even remotely learnéd.

I really understand the hostility towards 'woke culture' — Wayfarer

Ditto.

English stole "detto" from Italian in the 17th century (those damned cultural appropriators, rotten cultural imperialists, filthy cultural thieves) where it meant "said previously". By the 19th century it had become part of our family, a comfortable piece of furniture in the house. "Ditto" derives ultimately from Latin dicere, to say. Latin, of course, was the language of those arch-imperialists, rampant cultural appropriators, and world class cultural thieves of Rome.

waste and fraud — Wayfarer

Throw in abuse and you have the Trump program. Waste, because what is being tossed into the wood chipper are real assets providing real benefits to Americans and others. Fired talent is wasted. Employees and the public are abused. Undoubtedly something fraudulent is going on in Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (sic).

Of course there is waste, some fraud (DT knows all about that), and abuse in government. Spending trillions of dollars a year can't be done without at least some W, F, & A occurring. I can't keep track of the precise amount of spare change in my pocket over a month, and I try very hard to do so.

The fraud that exists is not in the payroll, and it isn't in entitlement spending. If it's anywhere, it's in military procurement where cost+++ seems to be the rule. Since the military feeds from such a deep trough, it can afford the jacked up retail prices it pays.

Outside of W, F, & A there is misdirected spending, ineffective spending, duplicate spending, and unnecessary spending (all subject to various definitions). That's harder to find than crude fraud. I've worked in several programs which received federal and state funds on a contract basis and sometimes we may not have delivered what we claimed to be delivering. We said we were reducing the incidence of AIDS. Were we? If the incidence of AIDS was reduced was that because of our efforts or some other factor--like intense news coverage? We all the condoms handed out used? Were needles always clean? Did the target population sign up for prophylactic medication? Did every AIDS patient take their meds all the time.

Our work was a small example, but the work we did was duplicated in thousands of locations across the US and in other countries. (Among at-risk groups where prevention projects are lacking, case loads go up.)

Slasher budget cuts ends up pulling the plug on excellent programs as often as only passable programs, whether it's in forestry, health care, education, agriculture, biomedical research, and so on.

You get this. (One of my sisters says I'm always stating the obvious. Probably true, but not everybody understands what's going on.)

You probably know this already, but one of the goals of USAID used to be "capacity building". It's the 'give a man a fishing pole' over giving him a fish'. It takes years -- decades -- to build capacity in developing countries. It's not like landing a plane load of food -- which is a good thing too, but for different purposes.

It could be a child-survival and maternal health project, for instance -- training local women in how to manage common diarrheal diseases in infants; setting up birth control programs; training in basic public health -- hand washing, using sunlight to improve water safety, etc. Setting up a district record keeping system for vaccinations might be done. It might be food security programs -- introducing easy to grow high-nutrient plants like passion fruit.

Introducing composting toilets can reduce disease transmission (resulting from helter-skelter outdoor defecation) and produces a safe and useful fertilizer. The toilets can be locally constructed, but the basic materials still need to be purchased which might be more than a poor family or community can manage.

Some efforts will fail: a program to distribute small concrete domes to cover toilet pits failed, because the local people didn't think the concrete shells were thick enough, and squatting on a thin cover over a shit hole was just not acceptable. The covers were thick enough, but they were not confidence inspiring.

A Norwegian project set up a fish processing plant at Lake Turkana in Kenya. It was unsuccessful because the usually competent Norwegian development program (Redd Barna) hadn't investigated the situation deeply enough. The beneficiaries were animal herders who didn't like fishing, didn't like fish processing, and didn't eat fish. Major flop!

It takes time for new practices to be taught, to be accepted, to become community-wide knowledge, and to last over the long run. Kill the program and gains may evaporate.

I've been looking for whether people like Land and Vance understand the population they're cozying up to. Do they understand that the alt-right is where Neo-Nazis go? Or are they just not afraid of that? — frank

That's a very good question.

I suspect that few of the conservatives who are doing the cozying up have thought through to the conclusion that they are flirting with ideas which are not part of the conservative tradition. If they did they would either take their warm blanket and cozy up with somebody else, or they would be in bed with the Neo-nazis.

Some have probably found Neo-nazis to be good in bed, and like it. I spend as little time as possible contemplating the far right, let alone Neo-nazis, so I don't know who's in and who's not.

I guess some of the things you've said in the past made me think you would agree that the progressive stance on race is like doctrine that can't be discussed, it just requires agreement — frank

Whatever I said in the past, this is what I think is true about Americans [other people have their own problems]:

Discrimination by the dominant group against people who are considered subordinate varies in form, intensity, duration, severity, and pervasiveness. There have been on-going efforts from the late 18th century going forward to ameliorate, soften, moderate, or eliminate discrimination. Battles have been won against most forms of discrimination--abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, labor organization, gay rights, and laws against religious and ethnic discrimination, and so on. Despite significant victories, discrimination continues.

There is a master-narrative that makes it difficult for Americans to see the various systems of discrimination: The master narrative holds that there is opportunity for any hard working American to a) get ahead b) be a success c) get rich. If you don't a) get ahead b) become a success c) get rich, that is a result of your own personal failure. You, individually, were evidently too lazy or too stupid to even get ahead, much less become a success or get rich.

As a result of very long periods of symbolic and material discrimination, some groups are less likely to "get ahead". Their collective experience is counted as personal deficiency. "It's your own fault."

It is not only Donald Trump who, per Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is living in a bubble of misrepresentation.

a fairly large majority of Americans are in such a bubble, where the reality of current symbolic and material discrimination, severe maldistribution of wealth, prejudicial policy and law, and so on isn't registered as something that can and should be eliminated.

The master-fact of the matter is that 10% of Americans are wealthier than the remaining 90%. Most Americans (the 90%+) are wage earners (aka wage slaves) who will not do better than "get ahead" to some degree. They won't be a success and they won't become rich despite their best efforts.

All workers -- White, Black, Asian, Aboriginal; men, and women; gay and straight; Catholic and Hindu are the victims of exploitation and systemic discrimination by the very wealthy ruling class.

White workers bear the double burden of recognizing how they themselves are the victims of discrimination (as wage slaves) and how they may discriminate against other workers. Don't feel guilty about it; just recognize reality and do better in the future. Blacks are not your #1 enemy: it's the 1%, the rich man who is your enemy and the black man's enemy alike. Unite in solidarity.

Just one quick addition: The alt-right most wants to destroy the gains which the 'old-left/liberals' achieved over the decades. Getting rid of DEI is just gravy.

I just got up, haven't finished coffee yet and you are asking me to defend the rotten corpse of leftism, so named by this bizarro world Nick Land. I had to do a quick Google consult to find out who Nick Land was and what "dark enlightenment" meant.

Land argues that the alt-right is reaction to a Left that has placed race on an untouchable holy altar. — frank

There certainly are leftists / liberals / progressives (whatever term...) who are focussed on race and marginalized, under-represented, and disadvantaged groups. They have substituted D.E.I for the class and labor issues of the "old left". The alt-right, ultra-conservatives, far right, etc. are quite exercised about D.E.I., but that isn't the big game they are hunting for.

What I think the alt-right and various fellow travelers are after is a retrenchment of mainstream liberal programs, such as the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid which help poor and poorer people; (mostly local) minimum wage laws that give workers something resembling a living wage;; regulatory programs which provide protection from egregiously exploitative businesses; and the like. There is an old core of conservatives who never liked Social Security, Unemployment and Disability Insurance, and Medicare and contested these programs in court -- just as younger conservatives took the ACC to court.

The alt-right isn't screaming about unions because, as important as organizing labor is, it's at low tide in most fields, except maybe public employment.

The primary beneficiaries of alt-right politics are members of the 1% / ruling class. Their rag-tag army of supporters and voters are not material beneficiaries. The riff-raff right wingers may get solace from suppressing various D.E.I. initiatives; they may like seeing food programs for the poor cut back; they may think that Godliness, the Flag, and National Honor will be restored. But in the end, they'll be shafted along with everybody else.

systemic racism — frank

It's an irritating catch phrase. Negative and positive race consciousness has been part of American culture for it to be anything other than 'part of the system'. After slavery, a civil war, Jim Crow, rampant racial exclusion and deliberate limits on opportunity, just about no body is free of race consciousness. Which is the source of the insight that we have to stop talking about race all the time if we are going to reduce racism.

I have to leave now for a lunch meeting. More later.

But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. — magritte

High-level administrators can be singled out because they have a public record of statements--but that's a small number. Most federal employees are getting fired in bulk, by classification. For instance, new employees, or old employees with new jobs--are "probationary" for a period of time. It's easy to identify them as a group and fire them.

The big problem with firing 5000 people who are probationary is that these employees--trying to prove themselves--are probably the most hard working and diligent.

Musk and his raiders haven't had time to go through the files in the Personnel Department (or Human Resources) and pick out people to fire on the basis of performance efficiency or ideological stances. That could be done, but that would require time.

There is a paper trail, no doubt, but most of the records needed to fire en-masse are computerized. It doesn't take AI or a super computer.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse takes time to ferret out. One can't just walk into the Treasury Department, look around, and say -- "We find waste and fraud here." A) there's probably not much fraud, and B) what is 'waste' anyway? Musk is abuse personified.

Musk is busy downsizing government bureaucracy — magritte

By share of the budget, wages for the federal workforce are between 4.5% and 6.6% of the federal budget, depending on how you count employees. There are about 1,870,000 employees. In order for Musk to make a significant dent in the bureaucracy, he might have to clear out about 500,000 workers.

Cutting 5,000 here, 20,000 there; eliminating such agencies as USAID, and so on, isn't going to achieve much toward trimming the bureaucracy.

One gets a bigger bang for the buck by disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess). Weak agencies just can't do as much to get in the way of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels as strong, fully staffed agencies can.

@fdrake Riding herd on this cattle drive must be one of the more thankless jobs for which one doesn't get paid. You've been on the trail for a long time, and you no doubt need an extended rest stop in one of the rooms with services at the Long Branch Saloon. They have a large selection; just ring.

So hang up your saddle, check your horse into the local livery stable, and order a nice hot bath to soak away all the sturm and drang of the site.

And should you decide to make yourself scarce, thanks for letting us know in advance. I would thank you profusely for your dedicated service, but you know, you did have a thankless job, so...

Good luck!

Well, what do you mean by "leg up" and "benefit?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

he might remind you that these are ultimately not the most important things in life, or maybe even particularly important things. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The rank and file of nations claiming The Western Tradition have never read much of classical literature or whatever counted as The Great Books at any given moment. They usually did not learn Latin or Greek, or anything else in much depth. Were they anti-intellectual proto-MAGA slobs?

No, they were not. They were focussed mostly on staying alive, making ends meet, affording food and shelter for themselves and their children. Their lives were constrained by burdensome circumstances. We have not transcended these circumstances. If lives are less constrained by burdensome circumstances in some countries, those better conditions are nowhere universal.

In a consumer driven political economy, what one ought to do with one's life is a difficult question. There are numerous texts (the Bible among them) which can lead one to understand how the necessary and yet superfluous role of 'consumer' is something of a curse. One works enough to afford the stuff one is expected to consume, and if you don't want the economy to crash, you had jolly well better buy buy buy!

But what is "good work" in this political economy based on consumption? Some of the work I spent 40+ years performing was death on the installment plan, figuratively speaking. Dead; dead end; deadening. There is a shortage of "good work" -- work that is on the face of it productive, clearly useful, meaningful, and paid--the grace of God doesn't put food on the table). Good work exists, certainly; there just isn't a lot of it.

Reading, study, seeking knowledge and understand, etc. can greatly enrich a life, but only the circumstances of the elite 10% to 20% of the population allow it.

The average student from the average family attending the average classically-oriented school will not graduate into the elite (unless his or her parents are already elite, generally) and will not readily put their classical knowledge to use in building a fine meaningful life. They will have to navigate the same crappy consumer political economy as everybody else does who belongs to the mass rank and file, and not to the elite.

I'm saying that there seems to be a cultural shift and renewed interest in Western civilisation and the intellectual tradition more broadly. — Tom Storm

Good news! There are many thick branches of varied thought within that intellectual tradition, and many of them are as good as gold. Find the most reachable limb and pick the best fruit you can find, depending on season and taste.

In order to sample these good fruits, students will have to read widely, an activity which actually entails very little suffering. Spice it up a bit; ancient western civilization isn't only about Plato and Aristotle. Much of the content in Eroticism and Family Life in Ancient Greece and Rome that I took at the U would not be news to a lot of high school students.

Family, community, and school (in that order) can encourage life-long learning. There are SO MANY interesting things to learn, and a long life isn't time enough.

I'm not at all convinced that a "classical education", as worthwhile as it might be, will turn out to be a great benefit to its recipients -- in 2025 going forward. Well, why wouldn't reading 'the great books' and getting sound mathematics instruction be beneficial?

First, there is the world-as-it-is, not the world-as-it-was. There are numerous upheavals under way in all sorts of areas of endeavor--and society at large--and I am just not convinced that being able to read Latin texts, for instance, or having read the Consolations of Philosophy by Boethius (died 524 a.d.) will give a young person that much of a leg-up in life.

Second, the classical education movement is not a solution to the problem which the enterprise of public education has become. I figure that 20% of American students receive very good to excellent education in public schools. 80% are receiving "passable to abysmal" education. Everyone is responsible for this -- the school administrations, the teachers, the students, the parents, and the communities at large (and no one is guilty?).

The 20% who are receiving a very good or better education have their communities, parents and schools to thank.

Third, It makes sense that parents would opt out of public education if an alternative is available. Some religious and non-religious parents have sent their children to Catholic or Lutheran schools (which tend to get better results, not least owing to motivated parents and students). The charter school movement provides an alternative, though (at least in Minnesota) charter schools tend to be inferior to public schools! Some opt for home schooling, some for other parochial education programs.

I attended a public school in small-town Minnesota starting in 1952. What made my public school experience at least reasonably successful was that the school was orderly, students were cooperative, teachers varied from excellent to fair. The community and parents supported the schools. At least acceptable behavior was expected all round.

Decent schools and successful education results are largely bottom up, rather than top down. No matter the administration, teachers, or curriculum, a school can't do much with several hundred to a few thousand "don't give a shit about school" students.