MaroonBlog

It's been a long time...

2010-07-14T20:53:00.001-04:00

Marked by many detours and misadventures. But, here I am. And, it feels good to be back.

We're Baaaaack (sort of) - NEW SITE!

2007-08-08T15:25:00.000-04:00

After a (longer than intended) haitus, I have decided that I will return to blogging regularly. I can't say I haven't missed it, in fact quite the opposite. The reasons for the long absence are many, but sufficed to say I was less than thrilled with the outcome of the midterm elections, and more importantly was feeling the pressures of school and career.

But it would only be a surrender of sorts to cease writing when the climate turns sour, and it felt like just that. Moreover, I was beginning to feel like the polarizing nature of an exclusively political blog was preventing me from writing on a wider range of topics that I found both interesting and poignant. The influence of the University of Chicago being what it is, I decided it was time to seek a forum where I could continue to elaborate on politics, while also opining on topics related to law, economics, music and technology, to name a few. Make no mistake - this will still be a largely political forum, but it is the duty of any good citizen to educate himself on a wide range of topics, all of which he may find relevant to life in a political society.

That being the stated goal, I am pleased to announce that MaroonBlog is no more - long live The Horatian Oath! Head on over, and thanks for sticking around - I think you'll like what you find.

Thoughts on the much-hyped Election

2006-11-09T15:59:00.000-05:00

First and foremost, it would be foolish for the Democrats to view this as some sort of victory of their ideological principles (or lack of), rather than what it was: a backlash against Republicans who weren't being Republicans. Examining ballot initiatives, by way of contrast to the candidates elected, reveals a much different story than what is being hyped by the MSM. In Michigan, voters rejected racial preferences in school admissions, while several states passed bans on gay marriage. California, for its part, rejected punitive taxes on oil producers. Yet the tax and spend, free love Democrats control both houses of congress. The meaning of this seemingly contradictory series of events is simple: the American people, more than one party or the other, hate do-nothing politicians. Recently, those Republicans who were swept into, and kept in, office on the principles of small government, fiscal responsibility, strong immigration and national security policies, and morally conscience social policy have descended to the level of their counterparts, by abandoning principle to maintain their place in office. This is what was defeated on Tuesday, nothing more.

The Republicans, for their part, need to lick their wounds, clean house, and get down to business. First, its time to remind themselves what got them into power in the first place, and return to it. Congressional republicans must propose sweeping immigration reform during the next term, an issue that is a win-win, with the Democrats either conceding to stronger measures, or risking being labeled early as the party that is soft on security once again. President Bush will have to take a stronger stand on immigration, and start vetoing bloated spending bills. And as for the new Secretary of Defense, its time to stop beating around the bush in Iraq. We need to increase troop levels, maybe dramatically, fire up the bombers, and go on the offensive once again. The "War" in Iraq was a sweeping success. The aftermath, however, has been an ongoing political charade that attempted to placate moderate voters and obstructionist Democrats at the expense of security and American lives. Let's bring this conflict to a close, not by withdrawing but by finishing the job.

Democrats did not win on Tuesday - lethargic Republicans lost. And perhaps rightly so. Now, however, the majority is the Democrats to lose, and they likely will. For, while they gained their majority by running on conservative principles, it won't be long before the true colors of Pelosi and Dean shine through, and the American people remember why they booted the party of tax hikes, abortion on demand, and national security waffling out of office in the first place.

Unsung Stem Cells

2006-10-30T23:37:00.000-05:00

Not that any of the pundits are paying much attention, but post natal stem cells continue to lead the way in new health care discoveries and cures (note, that to date, not a single actual cure has come from embryonic stem cells.

British scientists have grown the world's first artificial liver from stem cells in a breakthrough that will one day provide entire organs for transplant...Described as a 'Eureka moment' by the Newcastle University researchers, the tissue was created from blood taken from babies' umbilical cords just a few minutes after birth.

They go on to mention that, while a full grown liver is still in the future, the miniature one is functioning, and will be used as an accurate means to test new drugs. This is revolutionary, and should be rightly heralded as a turning point in the development of safe, ethical medical treatments using non-embryonic stem cells. Somehow, however, I feel like Michal J. may have missed the memo.

The Decline of Western Education?

2006-10-05T15:44:00.000-04:00

The point of the Western Civilization sequence is to nurture this sense of a living and continuous tradition of the West. That cannot be accomplished by a classicist assigning extra Cicero in a specialized course on ancient history. It can only be accomplished by a sequence of courses that connect Cicero, Machiavelli, and Tocqueville, a sequence taken in common by sufficient numbers of students to spark real discussion and debate, even outside of class. It is this sense of shared tradition that is being lost here, and that is what this debate over Chicago's curriculum changes is really about.

Stanley Kurtz, over at National Review, wrote those words in 2002 about the changes that were made to the Core curriculum here at Chicago, mainly the specialization and decomposition of the Western Civilizations Sequence. Flash forward, and it appears that "Great Books" rival Harvard is taking steps backward on the same front. According to the Boston Globe, Harvard will be making American History once again a requirement for graduation (a requirement, I must note, that is notably absent here at Chicago). Kurtz is on the topic again, however, and he isn't impressed.

Personally, I think he is right to be weary of such superficially "conservative" core adjustments, in lieu of more substantial progress, but at the same time I think Conservative academics, in general, need to take their victories where they can. The very emphasis on History at all, albeit still with its faults ("Health Care in the United States: A Comparative Perspective"???), at least opens the possibility of previously unheard discussion and debate on topics that drive the contemporary political debate, and form the basis of American, and Western, Civilization. As the left knows very well, you can't lose a fight your refuse to join. Judging from the student quotes, I'd say this is only the beginning of some needed reform:

"It seems to be about fears about the Middle East and the need to learn science so we can create better weapons to maintain American supremacy," said [Jenny] Tsai, a social studies major.

Putting aside the fact that the proposed changes are in the humanities, not the hard sciences, Tsai unwittingly reveals the sad, partisan state of affairs at Harvard. Let's hope this change is the first of many, for her sake at least.

Say Thanks to the Troops

2006-09-27T17:10:00.000-04:00

Xerox has a great site where you can send a free postcard to a soldier stationed overseas, complete with children's artwork and a custom thank you message. It doesn't take any time, and you can do it as often as you want, so check it out. (Hat Tip: Kingdom Heirs)

Fallout Shelter Future

2006-08-29T18:27:00.000-04:00

Stendahl wrote a novel about an ambitious young man trying to figure out what career he should follow to achieve his goal of becoming hte next Napoleon. He chose the priesthood as being most suitable for his times.

This article makes me think the military will be a method to rapidly rise in rank in the next few decades.

Burglary Blogging, and Thoughts on Profiling

2006-08-25T11:14:00.000-04:00

What better way to break a long absence from the blog than with a whopper of a story, one which poignantly illustrates the complexity of police work, and the need for more common sense in the realm of airport security, and the fight against terror. Living in Southside Chicago, you prepare yourself for all sorts of shenanigans, yet never really expect to find yourself in the situations that grace the cover of the Maroon.
When I arrived home yesterday, I noted two individuals carrying a large duffel bag standing at the door to my apartment building, fidgeting with the door. By the time I reached the door, they had it open, so I assumed they had a key, and thought little of it. That is, until I noticed the array of electronics in the duffel bags as they two jogged up the stairs of the building.
My suspicion peaked, I entered my downstairs apartment, jettisoned briefcase on-the-fly, and took the back staircase that runs in our building to the second floor apartment, also rented by our fraternity. Much as I had expected, as I entered the kitchen, I could hear voices and the sound of moving property in the front room of the apartment. Returning to my downstairs apartment, adrenaline pumping, I told the only other person home at the time, a small Indian woman, to call the police. Clutching a broomstick in hand (yes, I considered using a fraternity paddle), I paced loudly up the backstairs again, entered the kitchen, and proceeded to make as much noise as possible. Apparently successful in that endeavor, I walked down the hallway, stick in hand, and confronted the two intruders in the living room.
Shocked, and clearly more scared than I was, they began quickly emptying the contents of the bags into the floor, and stammering off an explanation for their uninvited, ill intentioned presence in my apartment. I threw open the front door to the apartment, and conveyed my sense of urgency regarding their departure. They hastily agreed. Because of the amount of time they spent jabbering and putting things down, they also hastened themselves right into the arms of Chicago's finest, arriving faster than I would have thought possible. Many long hours later, following myriad police interviews, felony charges resulted, and Harold's fried chicken was deemed in order.
Several important lessons came to mind as I sat, waiting, in the gritty waiting room of the 29th and prairie Police station, lessons that sorely warrant repetition in a world so often as backward as our own. First, there is nothing scarier than knowing that someone is in your house, but how anyone can justify the city of Chicago's total ban on firearms is completely beyond me. Nothing multiplies the feeling of helplessness like knowing that all that stands between you and criminal is a hastily wielded dowel. I have no doubt that the result would have been the same, i.e. the expulsion and capture of the perpetrators, but it is undeniable that it would have been both quicker, and safer, for everyone involved had the sound of a round being chambered, not a broomstick cracking, alerted the intruders to my presence. The irony, of course, is that no amount of bans will ever prevent those who break the law, and break into homes, from carrying the very implements I have been denied. Frankly, it's as disgusting a backward, blame the victim policy as exists in America today.
That said, the second lesson of the day follows quickly from the first: the focus of our legal system, and certainly our penal system, has drifted far from its moorings indeed. After several hours in the waiting room, one of the officers on the desk chuckled to me "You're still here? Wanna answer the phones or something?" He proceeded to lament what so many have said before: "Sucks to be the victim huh? That's why most crime goes unreported." Indeed. I've blogged on the failures of our penal system before, but I have no doubt that my two interlocutors will be getting a first hand introduction very soon.
The third, and perhaps most important lesson, is that profiling saves lives. If you don't like it, aren't comfortable with it, I understand, but I will remind you again the next time you are the victim of a crime. As the arresting officer pointed out sometime later, the only reason they were able to catch the suspects, who had exited the building and were fleeing when they arrived, was because of the terse "two black males" description. It does not bode well that I would not have been comfortable calling the TSA in this situation. Those on the left who simultaneously wish to treat terrorism as a law enforcement tool, while also denying the very tools of law enforcement to those who prosecute the war on terror, are living in a dream. As soon as al Qaeda starts using vacationing families from Nebraska to blow up planes, I suppose it will no longer apply, but for now I believe the single biggest boost for airport security, bar none, would be to do away with the idiotic and wasteful random searches, and focus on the demographics that are known to be terrorists. Simply, and logically, put: Not all Arabs are terrorists, but all terrorists that have thus far attacked the US are Arab. And while not all blacks are criminals, by far, it was only the recognition of the simple fact that all criminals residing in my apartment were black that lead to their capture. Simple lessons, but costly to learn.

Quote of the Day

2006-07-20T11:59:00.000-04:00

Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.

--Milton Friedman

Moving the Stem Cell Goal Posts

2006-07-20T10:05:00.000-04:00

Once again, the President has reminded me why I voted for him, summarizing nicely the backward behavior of the minority of Congressmen, and explaining his opposition the stem cell bill:

It makes no sense to say that you're in favor of finding cures for terrible diseases as quickly as possible, and then block a bill that would authorize funding for promising and ethical stem cell research. At a moment when ethical alternatives are becoming available, we cannot lose the opportunity to conduct research that would give hope to those suffering from terrible diseases, and help move our nation beyond the current controversies over embryonic stem cell research.

The most aggravating feature of this debate is how much it has been an argument about the wrong things. To begin with, there's a lot of talk of the "potential medical miracles" that are being quashed by this veto. Give me a break. Those proponents of embryonic stem cell research speak of one set of potential recipients as victims, while opponents rightly point out that the embryos are the victims themselves, not those who are afflicted by a disease that they would have whether or not the bill passed. Stopping that avenue of research doesn't suddenly make leukemia more fatal, or cause scores of citizens to suddenly contract alzheimer's. It will make a lot of human beings suddenly dead; just not the ones who can vote yet.
Perhaps more disappointing, and troublesome in the long-run, is the way in which"stem cell" has become synonymous with "embryonic stem cell." While embryonic stem cell research may hold possibilities, the truth is that the only substantive developments to this point have come from non-embryonic stem cells. In fact,embryonic stem cells have yet to yield a single treatment, therapy or cure. That's right: 0. Not only do adult stem cells hold the same potential as embryonic, as demonstrated by a 2001 study, but they are already being utilized, and have been for some time. Research on grown and/or altered brain cells to treat Parkinson's began in the 80's, and bone marrow cells have been for decades. Proponents of this bill, who pull at the heart strings of grieving relatives and kind-hearted Americans, would have you believe that this research is irrelevant, or non-existent. To do so is to truly overshadow the "medical miracles" all around us.

I think I've seen this movie

2006-07-18T23:45:00.000-04:00

Beware the giant yellow jacket nests...

Thank you, Bill Clinton et al.

2006-07-11T22:01:00.000-04:00

Chinese espionage threatens the arsenal of democracy...

Our Own "German Ideology"?

2006-07-11T21:51:00.001-04:00

Explain to me how this intoxicating swill is any different than the raw emotion that Marx appealed to?--it says all of the right things rhetorically, given its targeted audience, but makes no points at all on what a successful incarnation of it would appear to be in reality.

That piece is the work of a poet, and not a philosopher. It speaks some important truths, but it also intoxicates the reader with emotion removed from reason. Since the author seems to not follow up with reason and wisdom, he is thus a dangerous fool.

Even though Plato was being sarcastic when he had all the poets expelled from Socrates' Republic, he was making a very valid point with that sarcasm. Poets are dangerous. Especially this variety, that talk of truths without considering them with reason.

I sincerely hope that such unhinged populism does not take off in this country. That will be the true road to the death of our Republic and the return of tyranny.

Our Own "German Ideology"?

2006-07-11T21:51:00.000-04:00

Headline of the Day

2006-07-11T17:35:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld as Rambo?

It's even funnier if you imagine his grin being caused by his savoring the deaths of our enemies (not very far-fetched at all, I think).

Bombings in India (Refresh for updates)

2006-07-11T11:10:00.000-04:00

[Update: Thoughts] The death toll continues to rise, and as the numbers come in I think most people realize the scope and importance of this attack. Islamic terror is a global phenomenon, and no matter how much many on the left would like to pretend otherwise, President Bush and the Iraq war didn't invent it, and running out of Iraq and Afghanistan like we did Mogadishu won't solve anything. In fact, India doesn't even have troops in Iraq, a situation that we had recently been trying to change, and I now imagine will change rather easily. India is an important ally, and how they respond to this attack will speak volumes about their commitment to both defeating terror, and burgeoning conflicts in the region that may soon reqire their attention. This is only the latest tragic strike in a struggle against an ideologu so polarly opposite from our own that we must eradicate it completely or face our own demise at the hands exploding trains and hijacked airliners. It is tragic that events like this take place, and I hope that, if anything, it will remind Indians and Americans alike of the stakes of our present endeavor, and the further strengthen our resolve to see out this fight.

Elsewhere, I wonder if I'm the only one who gets the sick joke: the date is 7/11... and the bombings are in India. While a distinctly American connection, I wonder if it was intentional, or if the date simply reflects a fascination with the 11th. Go figure, Joe Biden. If it didn't hurt before, it sure will now.

[Update 1:33 CST] FoxNews reports the new death toll at 147, and says that Indian authorities are seeking the "terrorists" responsible. No surprise there, but I am intrigued by the TV report that they have a suspect in custody.

[Update 1:20 CST] Things seemed to have calmed down a bit, and updates will come only as relevant information becomes available. Casualty numbers have converged around 135 dead, 250+ wounded, which appears to be on the low end of the possible, given how clogged the train system is. As to who is responsible, there are no claims yet
"But suspicion was likely to center on Muslim militants fighting New Delhi's rule in disputed Kashmir, who have been blamed for several bomb attacks in India in the past. " (From Reuters)

[Update 11:13 CST] CNN has Video

[Update 11:10 CST] SkyNews has reported that more than 130 are dead, and they have some pictures up as well. Updates will be spotty until around 1:00 PM CST, due to meetings. Check back for continued updates.

[Update 10:44 CST] FoxNews reports Indian authorities had warning of an attack: "The Indian home minister said on Indian television that authorities had information of an attack but did not know when or where it was to occur...Police were also reportedly carrying out raids across the country following the explosions, presumably in search of suspects."

[Update 10:40 CST] Some thoughts: How will this effect the fragile, but recently calm, India/Pakistan relations? Undoubtedly it will strain relations, but it remains to be seen where the blame lies for the attacks. A Pakistan connection could spark a regional conflagration. Also, will this compel India, previously not a factor, to apply pressure to North Korea, Russia and/or China, responding to new found security concerns? While seemingly unrelated, it doesn't seem out of the question, given India's proximity.

[Update 10:25 CST]The attacks came shortly after the confirmed Kashmir Jihadi attacks in Sringar... they are assumed to be correlated, but no solid information yet... from the amount of damage done to the rail cars, the explosives would have to have been high powered, not the dinky work of a spontaneous amateur attack...this appears to have been carefully planned and executed, especially in light of the earlier attack and the simultaneous nature of the attacks... Indias's transportation grid is a mess anyway, and roads/trains etc. are jammed all over according to the new blog http://mumbaihelp.blogspot.com/... more to come, and please comment any relevant links or information...

[Update 10:00 CST] Horrific... Reuters is reporting over 100 dead (number is 104 as confirmed so far by police), and they have a few unlinkable pictures of the torn trains...

[Update 9:40 CST] Pajamas Media is reporting that CNN has upped the death toll to 40. Meanwhile FoxNews finally has a full story up, but they are lagging apparently. They still quote local news numbers, with 15 dead and 70+ wounded. Still no news on Al-Qaeda/ Kashmiri influence...

[Update 9:36 CST] Reuters is now saying over 30 dead, but the toll is unknown and is sure to rise

[Update 9:25 CST]From the WAPO: "India's CNN-IBN television news, which had a reporter traveling on the train, said the blast took place in a first-class car as the train was moving, ripping through the compartment and killing more than a dozen people...Another CNN-IBN reporter said he had seen more than 20 bodies at one Bombay hospital."

There are reports of bodies sprawled on tracks, and scores of walking wounded (still no pictures beyond screen captures)

[Update 9:15 CST] The only pictures so far are from CNN, and they're bad screen captures from Inian TV. See Below:

[Update 9:10 CST] Nobody seems to be sure exactly how many explosions
have taken place: AP reports 7, CNN is saying 6 and Reuters has at least 4

[Update 8:57 CST] Reuters has a map of the site, and some quotes, but no pictures yet... still no word on responsibility, cause, etc.

[Update] Fox News has some information up,

CNN is reporting 6 explosions at train stations in Mumbai... I believe there were reports some time ago that India had recieved threats... stay tuned for updates[Update 9:15 CST] The only pictures so far are from CNN, and they're bad screen captures from Inian TV. See Below:

The sound of settling

2006-07-10T11:13:00.000-04:00

While I usually defer to Jason's somewhat consistent ability to post a quote of the day, after reading Matthew Scully's critique of stare decisis I couldn't help myself. He writes, concerning "the Constitution's knock and announce requirement." :

This requirement was found hiding in the Fourth Amendment in 1995, still panting heavily from a 206-year chase in which it had eluded legal minds before then.

The stinging sarcasm of this brilliant line of prose aside, the recent trend of activists judges to pack nonsensical, imaginary clauses into the constitution like Microsoft bloat-ware is hedging on dangerous. Last week's decision to afford constitutional rights to non-citizens, and de-facto treaty status with al-Qaeda, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(pdf warning) comes immediately to mind, but it is only the latest in a string of decisions that have expanded the role and scope of the constitution.

Who can forget 2003, when the Court ruled that Brown v. Board, and constitutional equal protection, do not apply in "narrowly tailored situations, effectively keeping alive overt racial discrimination in college admissions. Later that year, reversing the 1986 Bower's v. Hardwick,the court ruled that the constitution allows for the sanctity of the bedroom, a decision that Scalia sharply criticized as the court "departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed." Indeed, the supreme court seems much less concerned with insuring the constitution is adhered to, and much more interested in forcing the constitution to adhere to a given agenda.

Tracing the phenomenon of the "magical, growing bill of rights" to Roe v. Wade, the classic example, it's easy to glean the origins of modern judicial activism in the so-called "implied right to privacy." Taking the Constitution in the context of the American Revolution, which was amusingly sparked over taxes and gun-control, it's not hard to see why the founders designated some areas as off-limits to government. But even an extremely careful, dare I say liberal, reading of the Constitution reveals that the only enumerated rights to so-called privacy appear in the realms of religion, firearm ownership, consenting search and seizure, public speech and private thought. And while it is tempting to pretend that the 4th and 5th amendments protect all manner of activities, the document clearly reads otherwise:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(emphasis, clearly, is mine)

As Justice Scalia rightly points out, it is left to other branches of government to determine what constitutes reasonable cause for crossing this threshold. The constitution makes no suggestion that some other, unenumerated realms of personal behaviour are simply off-limits to scrutiny entirely. The kinds of blanket protections issued by rulings such as Lawrence, and the profound social costs of absurd contentions like Hudson v. Michigan, are exactly the sorts of judicial over-stepping that were meant to be avoided by the constitution. Checks and balances, Mr. Kennedy, work both ways. The whole thing leaves me wondering: at what point will the constitution render itself ineffective by virtue of an implied right to disregard implied constitutional rights?

US Economy Booms

2006-07-08T20:15:00.000-04:00

Apparently the US economy, over the last 11 quarters, has, at the high end, grown by 50% of the total size of the Chinese economy (both measured by GDP). Not bad, and better than what happened under Clinton. Yet, the press doesn't seem to be writing the hyperbole it did only a short 6 or 7 years ago. Odd, isn't it?

UPDATE: Also, the Federal Deficit is decreasing dramatically, and should be down to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this year. That's a nice healthy level of deficit (especially if you remember at the end of WWII the Federal Deficit was 30%+ of GDP).

Why Europe isn't cold and Labrador is

2006-07-07T17:48:00.000-04:00

The real story. And no, the answer is not the Gulf Stream like everyone thinks.

Quote of the Day

2006-07-06T22:09:00.000-04:00

It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

--Lyndon B Johnson, in reference to J Edgar Hoover.

What's So Great About America?

2006-07-05T22:54:00.000-04:00

Dinesh D'Souza offers a few answers.

Freedom, Liberty and Iraqi Baseball

2006-07-05T15:10:00.000-04:00

I suppose it's a disappointing critique that I have to ask at all, but has it finally gone out of fashion for (almost) grown men to cry in public? Not that it matters much, since I'm fairly confident that I was among the large minority at Wrigley Field anyway, by virtue of my wearing a shirt with a collar (now there's a sight: someone at the game other than the shortstop who has his shirt tucked in). Monday nights being half-price, and the promise of fireworks without the requisite 6 hour commute on public transportation being too good to pass up, I hustled out of work a few minutes early, hopped on the Red Line, and found myself watching my childhood favorite Orioles embarrass the hometown Whitesox.

I imagine that something as simple and commonplace as a Major League Baseball game must be astonishing to a first-time observer, particularly one who doesn't come from the background of commonplace excess and supersized proportions. A lot of thought is given on the Fourth of July to the immigrant experience, and more generally to the many pleasures, small and large, that we as Americans enjoy, and certainly baseball is mentioned in many of them. That we take it for granted is natural, there are more than 150 games in any season, and most Americans will attend at least one in their lifetime. Perhaps the miracle of this country is that we can be so aloof in the presence of such feats of engineering as sports stadiums, so un-astonished that we routinely gather in numbers nearing 6 digits and no one is trampled, or knocked off by an IDE or a stray round. Baseball will need a while before it gets a real foothold in Iraq, I would imagine.

Far off in Iraq, probably with fireworks of a different sort, it's likely that the soldiers and sailors commemorated the 4th in their own way (for whatever reason, Chicago did their celebrating on the 3rd, but the point remains). It is a perplexing place to be I imagine, a soldier in combat on such a day. Perhaps it is a reminder of why you fight, but I can't imagine they need much of a refresher course. It's a shame the same can't be said for the people for whom they fight. Pete Mehlman, pontificating about the coming construction of the "Freedom Tower" in New York, makes the absurd comment that "New York already has a Statue of Liberty. Liberty, freedom - synonyms, no?" I must object, and upon further reflection, adamantly so. The very essence of this war, what makes it both unique and imperative, is the distinction of the two. Paul Hartman writes that

"Freedoms are things that people EXTRACT from their government; Liberty is less derivative, more formative; a thing GRANTED by the people to the people in common...Freedoms end when they encounter a contrary freedom of another person. You are free to smoke, until you encounter my freedom not to inhale your smoke. Liberty lacks that distinction: my liberty never contradicts or limits yours."

In our War against terror we are dealing with an adversary who is hell bent not only on destroying the freedoms that define our modern way of life, but more fundamentally on destroying the sense of liberties that make such a way of life possible. Baseball games, with their raging drunks and scantily clad female fans, must certainly enrage Osama types, but not nearly as much as the idea that this is not only a part of our culture, but commonplace, accepted, and occasionally celebrated. To paraphrase, shamelessly, I realize this is elementary stuff, but sometimes it needs to be said.

The outcome of Sox game was a welcome surprise, being a Baltimore fan at heart, and the post-game pyrotechnics were surprisingly well put together, complete with a slew of patriotic tunes. The combination proved remarkably moving, at least for me. I am occasionally surprised by the sorts of events that can trigger memories of September 11th, or a surge of pride for our troops, and unleash a well-spring of entropic emotion. The rockets did glare that night, much to our collective delight in the stands, but the backdrop only served to remind me, yet again, that in a conflict with terrorists of such a foreign state of mind, we are in many ways living on borrowed time. That men and women are dying every day to stave off the next tragedy, or to prevent it all together, seems somehow larger than life, yet it is the very essence of liberty and freedom diverging once again. They forego many freedoms afforded to Americans, and are subjected to terrible conditions, arduous endeavors, torture or worse. Yet the liberty with which they are instilled, the fundamental human liberty that is uniquely recognized in the founding documents of our country, can never be taken from them. In fact, it seems to shine all the brighter as they trudge into the unforgiving dark, knowing all the while that we are behind them, albeit some distance away, seeing only the glow of the rockets and the distant thunder. And it is that which I celebrate on July 4th, and which admittedly still causes at least one grown man to cry.

Happy Fourth of July.

This is awesome.

2006-07-03T23:54:00.000-04:00

The conservative's answer to fair-trade coffee.

A Congressman in the know

2006-07-03T19:16:00.000-04:00

Ted Stevens of Alaska has some cogent thoughts on how the Internet works. Who would have guessed...

Superman and America

2006-07-03T19:14:00.000-04:00

The difficult, never-ending burdens of power...

Timely Ruminations

2006-07-03T18:00:00.000-04:00

This was written about Memorial Day, but it deserves attention this week as well. Read the whole thing.

Wow

2006-07-02T19:35:00.000-04:00

A veteran of WWI meets with Prince Charles. The vet was born in 1896!

Marvel vs DC

2006-07-02T19:27:00.000-04:00

The never-ending battle (although, to unmask myself, everyone knows Spidey is the best of them all, with Cap being a close second).

I think that America's interest in comic books and super heroes represents something fundamentally good about us...

Quote of the Day

2006-06-30T22:33:00.000-04:00

Those Justices who today disregard the commander-in-chief’s wartime decisions, only 10 days ago deferred to the judgment of the Corps of Engineers with regard to a matter much more within the competence of lawyers, upholding that agency’s wildly implausible conclusions that a storm drain is a tributary of the water of the United States. It goes without saying that there is much more at stake here than storm drains.

-Justice Thomas, in regards to the Hamdi fiat.

The Land Down Under

2006-06-23T18:46:00.000-04:00

I now know where I'll go if things ever dissolve into anarchy in this country...

Why, of course.

2006-06-23T18:42:00.000-04:00

Rove and Satan are in cahoots. I mean, even second-rate newspapers know that...

Chicago Terror Plot, and the future of the Bush Whitehouse

2006-06-23T09:15:00.000-04:00

With the foiling of a massive terror plot in Miami, one aimed at none other than the Sears Tower, it is officially pouring for the Bush Whitehouse. It seems like the Bush presidency has been marked, at least since September 11th, by the alarming waxes and wanes of his political fortune; more so than many of his predecessors. Perhaps it is that increased public scrutiny and awareness, that desire to find leadership in time of crisis that accompanied the country's awakening to terror, that caused this trend toward fluctuation in both the public opinion and, seemingly, presidential fortune. At any rate, the triumphant capture of Zarqawi seems to have been the latest trigger for a much-needed upswing. Since then, one can trace the streak of victories, small and large, for the President: the completion of the Iraqi cabinet, the killing of "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, in Iraq, the recent press release reminding the public and the press that, yes, Saddam had weapons and lots of them, the surprising and encouraging backing by European leaders of the President on both North Korean and Iranian policies, etc. Today's news, however, may be the most important of all.

A federal indictment against seven men revealed Friday details of what the government said was a plan intended to "kill all the devils we can."

The mission was intended to be "as good or greater than 9/11" beginning with the destruction of Chicago's Sears Tower, according to court documents obtained Friday by CNN.

Certainly a chilling prospect, made all the more worrying by my current proximity to the building in question (its only a few blocks from my office in the Federal Reserve). Yet the discovery of this plot is a powerful opportunity for the Bush administration to capitalize on recent success, and translate it into a change in lagging public approval. The news of this latest would-be attack reminds America not only that we are at war with an ideology, one that supersedes traditional understandings of nationality and warfare (5 of the suspects are reportedly American, this is still unconfirmed) and will go to any lengths to inflict change upon its perceived adversary, but also that we must remain vigilant in the pursuit of our own preservation, and not lose sight of the lessons of September 11th. Most important, perhaps, is the unspoken implications behind the fact that this plot is a foiled one. For all his critics, and there are many, all those who decry the Bush administration as lacking focus in the war on terror or trampling civil rights, he sure seems to be doing something right. It's time Republican leadership, and the Whitehouse, started saying so.

You might be a grad student if...

2006-06-20T21:22:00.000-04:00

I'm not yet a grad student, and I already resemble a large majority of the items in this list. I guess that means I'd better become a grad student, huh?

Shakespeare and Google

2006-06-20T01:47:00.000-04:00

Wow.

Quote of the Day

2006-06-12T00:28:00.000-04:00

Wars are the natural and unavoidable effects of the constitution of human nature and the fabric of the globe it is destined to inhabit and rule. I believe further that wars, at times, are as necessary for the preservation and perfection, the prosperity, liberty, happiness, virtue, and independence of nations as gales of wind to the salubrity of the atmosphere, or the agitations of the ocean to prevent its stagnation and putrefacation. As I believe this to be the constitution of God Almighty and the constant order of his Providence, I must esteem all the speculations of divines and philosophers about universal and perpetual peace as shortsighted, frivolous romances.

--John Adams

Hitler cats

2006-06-11T05:33:00.000-04:00

In case you needed another reason (and certainly you don't...): why you don't want to become one of the great punch-lines of history...

Religous Liberty vs Gay Marriage

2006-06-11T05:22:00.000-04:00

Watch out for the coming "train wreck"...

No, not sabotage

2006-06-08T20:28:00.000-04:00

Justice.

This video encapsulates much of my feelings about the death of Zarqawi today.

While there is a slight twinge about the killing of another human being, even one as deserving of being and necessarily killed as Zarqawi that let's me know I haven't lost my humanity due to the brutality that Zarqawi has unleashed on so many, it's far below the overwhelming joy I get every time I see that house explode in that video. I know at that moment he got the justice he had coming.

For thousands of years it was considered, even in Christian times, to be virtuous to bring justice to ones enemies. Zarqawi was certainly an enemy of mine and every other citizen of the US, Iraq, Jordan, and several other nations. The death of such a vile enemy is truly a very great and noble deed.

I congratulate and thank the soldiers, and even any informers that provided intel, for this, but especially our US troops, for this. Today is a great day.

Also, interestingly, I think the joy I know I can rightly have over the death of this very evil murderer must be something similar to that felt in ancient times when one defeated an enemy in battle. While I certainly did not contribute to this victory directly, I am a citizen of a democracy--the victory of the nation is a victory for every citizen. So thus, I celebrate our victory.

UPDATE:You have to enjoy the good when it comes around, for it doesn't come around often in war. If you don't, you won't have the will to make it through the bad and trying times that'll inevitably come. Celebrate now, and harden your hearts with the resolve to keep pushing towards victory.

Another UPDATE: A sentiment from someone in the Administration that I think sums up Zarqawi's death well as far as our war to bring democracy and stability to Iraq:

At worst this is really, really good, at best it's ground-breaking.

UPDATE-the-third:From The Captain:

While Zarqawi's strength came from his decentralized ability to cause casualties randomly, our strength comes from our ability and resources to plan and execute complex and overpowering missions to defeat asymmetrical threats. Today, we see that our strengths will inevitably provide victory over those of the terrorists. They are outclassed, and the only way they can win is if we give up

UPDATE Four: Yeah, just to further make clear why the flash of that bomb in the above viedo brings me so much joy--Zarqawi is the guy with the saw and the head in his hands in the infamous Berg decapitation video.

1000 lbs of high explosives was too generous for Zarqawi.

UPDATE Five: Proverbs 11:10

When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, and when the wicket perish there are shouts of gladness.

So shout for joy!

Also, why this is good for our efforts in the war--Proverbs 11:7

When the wicked dies, his hope will perish, and the expectation of wealth perishes too.

Certainly our moral is increased, and our enemies decreases. Also, a great propogandist and organizer of men has been killed. The death of Zarqawi cannot be interpreted as anything but a great step forward.

Finally, he had it coming, and was ratted out by his associates--Proverbs 11:5

The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.

(NB: all of the above biblical quotes are from the English Standard Version of the Bible [ESV])

Machiavelli on running Harvard

2006-06-07T23:22:00.000-04:00

Mansfield certainly channels the Florentine Devil in this piece on the resignation of Larry Summers a few months back. Machiavelli's influence (and that of several other thinks, like Aristotle) on Mr. Mansfield is especially obvious in the closing paragraph:

Summers's administration was a one-man show. He did not build a group of supporters to carry out his plans. He relied on himself alone. It was as if his individual superiority would bring victory in a series of single combats without his having to build an army with soldiers, marshals, and a Garde Impériale. His audience would applaud his victories and the common good would be served. Yet this picture is not quite right. Far from imitating Napoleon, Mr. Summers believed in reason and in self-interest as the object of reason. He thought he could prevail without winning and apologize without losing. Nor would he have to out-argue his intellectual inferiors. He would merely question their opinions and show them their indubitable self-interest. He was in a deep sense impolitic, an economic man who knows nothing of war and hence nothing of politics. He lost his own opportunity and in doing so may have spoiled it for others.

Strap-on 'Batwings' for SpecOps

2006-06-07T22:45:00.000-04:00

This is totally awesome, and a great idea as well.

Anti-War Protesters at D-Day

2006-06-07T22:15:00.000-04:00

The whole list is great, but this is my personal favorite (you won't get it if you know nothing about the start of WWI, which hopefully isn't the case):

5. We are attacked by Japan and then attack France? Roosevelt is worse than the Kaiser!

The in-betweeners

2006-06-07T21:51:00.000-04:00

This article tries to answer the question about why there seems to be a lack of great artists in the Baby Boom generation, and concludes with a very damning indictment:

The generation born in the '30s and early '40s was at the forefront of this campaign to destroy old taboos, to eradicate the fears and restraints. For a while, it seemed an epic struggle — taboos and fears and restraints die hard. An aura of heroism, of great projects of liberation, clung to their efforts. And those efforts did take courage and conviction.

But by the early '70s, the battle had been won. The taboos were gone. And all we had left were "lifestyles," the religion of the baby boomers, with their extended egos. Whatever else this religion is, it is not a formula for greatness.

Ouch.

Polygamy Versus Democracy

2006-06-07T21:30:00.000-04:00

Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.

So, if you say that's a ridiculous opinion, read the article, which is full of historically-backed argument, and then get back to me.

Also, as an aside, I found this little passage to be very thought-provoking:

The 12-year federal drive to enforce Reynolds was far more than a quest to root out polygamy. In effect, the fight against polygamy was a slow, frustrating, expensive, ultimately successful campaign to democratize Utah. (The parallels to the war on terror are eerie.)

On Manliness

2006-06-07T03:05:00.000-04:00

Wow. If ironic, I call that 'review' brilliant rhetoric. If instead it holds any pretensions to criticism, I call it hilarious for a very baser reason.

Again, wow. Sometimes I forget the depths that pretentious ignorance can plumb. That article is better than any parody I could do. Reading is truly believing; check it out for a good laugh, especially if you've actually engaged with Mansfield's book.

6606

2006-06-06T18:18:00.000-04:00

Well, on this auspicious day, I thought I should post something on-theme.

You might find it more entertaining if you know it's inspired by Evil Dead(of which Army of Darkness is a classic).

'Extremism' in American Politics

2006-05-31T19:30:00.000-04:00

Extremism isn't always bad in politics. Especially when the 'extreme' policy is the right one. This piece by Jonah Goldberg is a must read.

While I could quote the whole thing, I will refrain and instead just quote one of the many great nuggets of truth that Mr. Goldberg has mined:

On issue after issue, the Left and Right get into a tug-of-war over their preferred policy solutions. And politicians, extreme people-pleasers that they are, try to split the difference. The journalists who cover politicians are cynics and assume that true believers are by their very nature suspicious. Moreover, because politicians and mainstream journalists alike get the most grief from “partisans” of the Left and the Right, they both assume that the middle is the most enlightened place to be, since they think that’s where they are. But compromise is not always the smartest way to go. Leaping a canyon in one jump may or may not be stupidly extreme, but it’s a hell of lot smarter than the more moderate approach of trying to leap it in two jumps.

The Simpsons as philosophy?

2006-05-31T17:07:00.000-04:00

Perhaps, but only if you consider nihilism to be serious philosophy.

We now know we're just a bunch of naked apes trying to get on as best we can, usually messing things up, but somehow finding life can be sweet all the same. All delusions of a significance that we do not really have need to be stripped away, and nothing can do this better that the great deflater: comedy.

However, nihilism seems to be more the absence of any real truth, a philosophy of no absolute truths, so really a philosophy of nothing. How can one consider nihilism 'philosophy' when its pronouncement that humans are merely animals and there are no absolute truths makes Hitler just as reasonable as Jesus Christ? Nihilism like this says that humans can't know absolute truths, because either there are none (I think this is the most common type of nihilism) or can't know them because man is merely an ape. If one can't know truths, than philosophy, which has the end of knowing truth, is an exercise in futility. So to a nihilist, like the author demonstrates himself to be by his opinions in the article, of course philosophy and philosophers are ridiculous, working futily at a non-existant end with pretensions of grandeur. Absurd indeed.

Back to that quote above--that naked Darwinism is quite funny. It claims at the same time that humans have no real significance, yet humans have the significant and unique ability to realize that they are just 'damned dirty apes'. The oxymoronic irony is delicious, and just demonstrates that Darwin is not a replacement for Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. If man is nothing but a 'naked ape' (which we're not--Aristotle shows quite clearly that man is the only animal that has speech and is thus poltical, making man different from all the other animals) that has no higher and different end than other animals, than the selfish killing of children (lions and apes do this), murderous war for no other ends than selfishness (animals do selfish things that hurt the species all the time; often what is war other than a collective, political selfishness of men [interestingly, the political nature of war provides a great counterexample to the thought that men are merely apes]), and no need to create higher culture (show me a Beethoven, Michelangelo, or Dostoevsky of the animal world, please) are all what man can or should be. What a terrible way to view the world, for it is so manifestly wrong. And if you think otherwise, try engaging the first book of Aristotle's Politics, as very small start, for a taste of your own ignorance.

Back to the article: it reveals its nihilism even more clearly later on in the piece:

Any individual or group is shown to be ridiculous when only their pathetic and partial view of the world is taken to be everything. That's why no one escapes satire in the programme, which is vital for its ultimately uplifting message: we're an absurd species but together we make for a wonderful world.

The Simpsons, like Monty Python, is an Anglo-Saxon comedic take on the existentialism which in France takes on a more tragic hue. Albert Camus' absurd is defied not by will, but mocking laughter.

The piece seems to reveale that its worldview is one in which all cultures need to be celebrated, that everyone is special, that different opinions are all okay and part of the greater whole. What rubbish--how can a Hitler and Ghandi coexist side-by-side without one getting snuffed out?

What the Simpson's often does it ridicule many things, and the article takes that to be good because it deflates the false pretensions of philosophers that think their philisophical systems are absolutely correct. It's fair to point out things that are incorrect. However, to ridicule the basis for society without providing a new basis for it is nihilism in its purest form. I don't see any basis for society in the article other than an unthinking assumption that the world as constructed today in the west is good. As soon as someone askes why, the emperor is revealed to have no clothes for this author.

The article says that 'we're an absurd species but together we make for a wonderful world'. A few things: why exactly are we an absurd species? Are all species absurd? Is the absurdity indicative that man should be acting like another species that isn't absurd? Or, are we knowledable in our absurdity, but we can't act any other way because we are by our very nature unchangably absurd? What a tragedy that would be--to be knowledable that man is fundamentally flawed now and forever, with no chance of ascending to greater knowledge and perfection (in this case less absurdity), with our without God's aid.

Also, we live in a wonderful world. Why? Because we think it's wondeful? Okay, why do we think that? A gut feeling: sounds like Aristotle and Aquinas to me. Because people have looked at life in detail and explained through reason why the world is wondeful?--again, philosophy. Hmmm...man can't know truth, yet the article asserst many things are 'true'. As they say, 'does not compute..."

What this article seems to be doing is trying to make people feel that their ignorance is superious to the efforts of men to try to discover truth. The article is saying that man can't know truth, but that's good in itself. And since one doesn't know truth by default, everyone's good! Yay, let's have a hug and a nap. Blink, blink...

[I]t is no coincidence that the most insightful and philosophical cultural product of our time is a comic cartoon, and why its creator, Matt Groening, is the true heir of Plato, Aristotle and Kant.

Nietzsche is an heir too, in a way. And who are Nietzsche's unwanted bastard children? Hitler and Communist Russia. Me thinks it's not saying much to call someone an heir to Plato. Actually, I take that back--in most cases, and in particular this one, to call someone an heir to Plato is to be extremely demeaning to Plato.

One last thing for now: in the comments on the article, this insiteful comment is made:

Curiously, Julian's interpretation of Homer the Heretic is opposite to that the episode itself makes. The point is made (by Marge) that Homer has created these quips as excuses to disengage from faith, and has to be rescued from the fire by those still engaged enough to be willing to take action (Apu and Flanders). Far from being "simple philosophical truths", his quips are "tempting excuses for inaction". So perhaps the Simpsons' main gift is to be vague enough to read whatever you like into it.
William, Cambridge, UK

Perhaps the Simpson's has more merit (at least as being skillfully constructed to appeal to many people--a very small virtue, but still the cleverness deserves some recognition) and it's merely the terrible trite postmodern reading of it by the article's author that is deeply simplisic and flawed. However, if the reading of the Simpsons by the author of the above-linked piece is a valid one, than the Simpsons is in fact nihilistic and not good philosophy at all.

Now, as a substitution to this nihilism, I think this is a good start; to not provide such an alternative would be extreme hypocrisy on my part.

EDIT: So yeah, I went through this and edited it significanlty, and then lost the edits. This has crushed my will, so I now knowingly present a less thorough and well-edited critique than I would like. Maybe now you'll enjoy ridiculing me and my manifest ignorance even more now than you would have with the better version=)

Secret Wars Re-Enactment Society

2006-05-31T16:32:00.000-04:00

More geeky hilarity courtesy of Johan Goldberg.

Artery-clogging goodness

2006-05-31T16:23:00.000-04:00

The Spanglish Sandwich (with other good sandwich recipe links as well).

It's only 1200 calories...

Do you want to laugh so hard you cry?

2006-05-30T23:43:00.000-04:00

Watch Emperor Palpatine react to Darth Vader telling him the Death Star was blown up. Absolute comedy gold.

If you've never seen Robot Chicken, you should check it out sometime. I think it airs on Sunday nights on Cartoon Network. It's normally got at least a bit or two as funny as this one in every episode (premise of the show is little sketches that make fun of TV and pop culture, animated with stop motion action figures).

My childhood...

2006-05-30T23:36:00.000-04:00

Ahhh, the memories.

And interestingly, GI Joe, at least the first several seasons (I saw several episodes the other day--yeah, for shame...) is actually not bad at all, and even had some foresite--COBRA was a terrorist organization bent on taking over the world...

Oh, and Muppet Babies, my favorite show from about 3-7, TMNT, ChipnDale Rescue Rangers, The Real Ghostbusters, Inspector Gadget, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Gummy Bears, Reboot...

Vote for the 'best' American Literary Novel

2006-05-30T23:30:00.000-04:00

Even though I think there are better novels, I had to vote for Catch-22. The first half of that book is just so damn funny, and very well-constructed on top of that.

The list that the poll is based on also provides a great many novels to add to my to-read list.

UPDATE: A few 'oversites' have been mentioned as worthy reading as well, although they're not in the poll.

Beer Rankings

2006-05-30T23:26:00.000-04:00

Always useful. Although, there is clearly a bias towards strong-tasting beers like ales, but what did you expect from a beer snob that actually has a compendium of taste ratings, heh.

I think they rated Goose Island Honker Ale a bit low, though. I think it might be better than Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, myself, it had a more complex flavor a delicious note on the top of the palate. Of course, I've never tasted both side by side, so I'll have to reserve complete judgement until I have the cash to afford buying both at the same time to do a true taste-test.

However, I do agree that Guiness deserves a near-perfect rating. Of course, you can only drink it draft to truly experience it's glory. But, if consumed from draft, it's a delicious meal in a glass.

Cab Driver becomes talking head celeb

2006-05-20T22:38:00.000-04:00

You have to read (and watch) this.

On Strategic Bombing in WWII

2006-05-20T22:26:00.000-04:00

A new book is out that argues the strategic bombing campaigns conducted by the Allies against Germany and Japan in WWII were just as morally reprehensible as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in fact that the efforts in WWII were terrorist attacks themselves.

This piece rebuts those fallacious arguments very well. Here's an excerpt, although I recommend reading the whole thing:

But the difficulty of defending this position does not mean that we should defend its opposite, which is that the claims of civilians are absolute and universal to the point that 1942’s RAF pilots were the moral equivalent of today’s Al Qaeda, or for that matter of the German pilots who terror-bombed Warsaw and Belgrade. Here we must consider the morality of intentions. Defeating the Axis at the lowest practicable human cost was an admirable intention. Seeking a racist world empire was not. A good end cannot justify any means, but a supremely good and urgent end may at least partially justify bad means.

It seems to me that the argument that Allied efforts in WWII were morally reprehensible is founded in a belief that war is never just, or a belief quite close to that. Simply put: war can in fact be just, noble, and good. To think otherwise is to lay the groundwork for tyranny. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Ouch

2006-05-19T18:33:00.000-04:00

This cartoon takes a swipe at a lot of people--and it strikes true.

On asparagus

2006-05-19T18:22:00.000-04:00

When potty humor and science collide...

The wasted manhours...

2006-05-19T18:12:00.000-04:00

If 1% of all the time spend on MySpace by people was directed to a better end, even something as simple as, I don't know, thinking, the world would be a much better place.

What an absolute waste of time...I'm glad I've stayed away from that sort of thing. I have a facebook acount, but it's only there so other people can keep up with my contact info. Such a thing is useful. Living a 'virtual life' is not; it's not anything close to real life, and only detracts from one's real life.

Yeah, maybe I could post up good pictures of myself to attract women (although I'm doing fine without such nonsense); however, after wasting time managing such digital efforts instead of persuing more productive things like, say, reading, I'd have become more stupid. Stupider. Dumb.... Yet again my faith in the common man is damaged.

Re: On affirmative action

2006-05-19T17:47:00.000-04:00

Andrew, in the spirit of vigorous debate, I respond to your criticism of my quick post on affirmative action:

If you mean it's not good to speak the truth, perhaps you're right. It's certainly a dangerous proposition for one that points out unpopular truths. However, what I said was not out of line. I have my examples in mind, and they are not the result of racism. I wish that what I saw wasn't the case--I liked many of the people I have in mind, and am friends with them. However, to wish it away and ignore the facts is just as bad as the policies that created said problems.

I challenge you to point out why my comments was wrong--rather 'rude and somewhat unfounded'. I'll concede that what I said was 'rude', if you're using a meaning of that word that means that pointing out harsh truths is 'rude'. If that's rude, than let more people be rude. Socrates, although I am certainly no Socrates, was very rude.

Also, I should point out that your criticism wasn't directed at what I actually said: I wrote that some of these students were having a hard time at their studies, that perhaps they weren't adequately prepared for the rigours of the UofC. That's not mean at all--not everyone can jump into the UofC's academic environment and succeed; it certainly requires a good amount of previous learning and a certain amount of talent (these attributes are not tied to race by any means, just to make that clear). These students clearly weren't ready for the UofC. Also, I never said I'd judge people in the future that were minorities and question their achievements. I won't need to: if I'm hiring someone, I'll look up their GPA and transcript and see for myself how they did. I'll base my opinion on facts, and not innuendo, just as I did in the small case of what I said in my previous post.

While the policy of afffirmative action is by definition racist, and it is certainly unjust for the reasons you stipulated, my criticism was a simpler one: these students were getting bad grades and were struggling to such an extent that they would have been better served going to another institution. There's nothing wrong with that criticism by any means, especially since I made explicit that I was speaking with a few students in mind.

Like I said before: the facts can be harsh, especially when they go against what is politically correct. However, Andrew, you should know very well that not all commonly held beliefs are right or just. I was merely pointing that out a specific case: that of affirmative action doing a disservice to the students that it places in environments they're not prepared for, and also to those students whom were denied the environment they were suited for and deserved because they weren't of the right race.

It's a simple opinion, and not racist. Again, tell me why my comments aren't appropriate? I certainly wasn't claiming to be providing 'the answer' to the education gap. I was merely providing a small anecdote. Now, if some racist wanted to take what I said and use it as 'evidence' for their incorrect views, I suppose they could twist what I said. Perhaps that's what you object to, my words being abused by someone else? Let me just say this: if one had to always make sure that what one said was unable to be twisted to support incorrect views, one would never speak.

Remember, one must always maintain perspective and reasonable judgement=) If I was claiming to have a big 'answer' and only delivered that, then I deserve to be castigated. However, I don't have the answer. I merely know what I see. And sometimes what I see is not good (and in this case I relayed some unfortunate things I'd seen). However, I'd rather see the unjust rather than blindly gaze at shadow.

Re: Race, College, etc.

2006-05-15T12:43:00.000-04:00

This remains the true tragedy of affirmative action. Jason, while your comments are both rude and somewhat unfounded, the point they lead toward is an important one. Affirmative action, in its end result, devalues the intellect and contributions of minority students by, to paraphrase slightly, judging them only on the color of their skin, not the content of their character. I can't imagine having to go through life wondering, and often being asked, whether I was the recipient of affirmative action, or whether I was actually "good enough" to make it on my own. But questions like Jason's will follow minority students their whole lives, even those who were clearly qualified. How insulting, but it is the only possible result of a system that is based on a racist premise anyway: Minorities can't make it on their own, we need to lower the standards and help them out. To really seek positive results, we need to demand more accountability from teachers, stricter standards and curriculums in public schools, and an overhaul of the corrupt, Democrat stronghold, inner-city school systems. Affirmative action is not the answer to the education gap, and neither are your comments Jason.

Illegal Immigration, Race, and College

2006-05-10T16:26:00.000-04:00

Read this.

And, I should say that I was friends with several people at the UofC that were part of the 'prefered' minorities groups. And they often didn't have the same abilities or grades as their fellows. Hard truth, because they were great people, but it was completely unfair to let them in over a smarter and more qualified white or asian student.

I'd better delete these dangerous thoughts before someone reads them...

Winning a war isn't news

2006-05-10T16:24:00.000-04:00

How can I tell that? Because, I don't hear about the US winning in Iraq from the MSM.

The same sort of thing applies for the economy: it must not be good because they're not talking about it (this kills me even more, because the economy is hotter now than at any time during Bubba's presidency--and you saw how it was played up then).

Immigration Complexities

2006-05-09T13:08:00.000-04:00

[Note: The below article appears, somewhat edited, in today's Chicago Maroon (link). I have provided the article in its entirety for the benefit of the reader, and in order to be slightly clearer on the topic and promote more discussion.]

There's never a shortage of amusement to be found at a rally of the size and scope of the Pro-Immigration festivities that took place downtown. Personally, I enjoyed the irony of the rallying call that had pervaded at similar gatherings out west: “Stop Treating Us Like Criminals!” The answer, of course, being “Then Stop Breaking the Law!”

Putting aside the philosophical implications of a group of people demonstrating, much like their French counterparts, not to challenge the status quo but to preserve their place in it, I am struck by how rapidly ad hominem nonsense has become the body of debate on illegal immigration. The operative phrase, of course, is illegal immigration. I, like most sane people, recognize the importance and validity of legal immigration. The flow of new ideas, and new innovators, into the United States is among the leading reasons we as a country are continually on the leading edge of science, technology and culture. Yet this seemingly obvious recognition only points out the need for stricter curtailing of illegal immigration. Not only is lax immigration law and reform devaluing of the contributions of legal immigrants, and the process they went through to get here, as well as encouraging illegal immigration, but it has startling implications for our national security as well. That we can even pretend to value homeland security without securing our borders against unknown intruders reflects a sad state of affairs indeed. Enforcement, and border security, are only part of the answer however.

To begin with, we need to reform the process of legal immigration to bring it back in line with the goals of our country and the economic realities we face. The United States places a limit of 65,000 on the H-1B visas for skilled worker. I fail to see why we would want to limit the number of new doctors, engineers and scientists who legally immigrate to the United States. I can recall, for example, a nursing shortage that could easily use an influx of skilled, experience workers. Furthermore, increasing the quota for unskilled workers would not only infuse the economy with new labor, but it would cause illegal immigration to plummet as the jobs illegals sought were snatched up by their legal counterparts.

However, such an increase in visas needs to be accompanied by a stricter mode of filtering who is, and isn't, allowed into the United States. Increasing the chances of being allowed to immigrate legally will only solve part of the problem. If it remains easier to simply sneak in, then why would someone bother to even apply? That means we must prevent immigrants from entering illegally, and endeavor to know who we are allowing in legally. As for those illegals already here, following through with strict penalties on employers of illegal immigrants is the only way to curtail the problem of illegal hiring. Further, detaining, and potentially deporting, illegal immigrants will send a powerful message to would-be illegal immigrants, a message that needs to be sent. The endless string of amnesties that are proposed, while heart felt and charitable in their intentions, they will only make things worse. The simple outcome of such amnesties is to validate the illegal immigration process, devalue the time and effort many put into immigrating legally, and encourage a new wave of illegal immigration.

Ironically, it is actually in the best interest of many of the attendees upon the recent rallies to endorse stricter immigration reform. Illegal immigration's effects are far reaching, from changing job markets and labor prices to added strain on our social security and public education programs and growing security concerns. Moreover, the common misconception that illegal immigrants are necessary because they perform jobs Americans “refuse to do” is simply untrue. True, illegal immigrants disproportionately occupy service and maintenance jobs. But Americans don't occupy these jobs because of their given wage rate. If illegal immigrants weren't present in such number, Americans would force employers to raise wage rates and find innovative cost cutting measures. And, yes, the trash would still get picked up.

American citizenship, even simply residing in America, entitles its bearer to so many freedoms sorely lacking throughout the world. We should welcome with open arms all those who wish to contribute to the continued prosperity of our country, and benefit from it, so long as they are willing to immigrate in the manner we prescribe. It is our right, and we should exercise it.

Kierkegaard on Islam

2006-05-06T21:29:00.000-04:00

A very interesting little article.

The Emperor is not worried...

2006-05-06T20:56:00.000-04:00

Darth Hewitt says everything is proceeding as he has forseen.

That's comforting. However, THE Emperor was beaten by a bunch of ewoks and betrayed by his loyal servant Vader. So, take it with a grain of salt... (Hat tip: Instapundit)

The hard times of pimps and whores

2006-05-06T18:43:00.000-04:00

A hollywood insider's perspective on the writing side of movies.

Because of my near aneurism...

2006-05-06T00:02:00.000-04:00

...a few moments ago, let me provide a nice distraction (mainly for those of you who aren't acquainted with that bedrock site of the interweeb) to help lesten the shock to all seven of my loyal readers.

I'll just go stare at that glorious t-shirt I mentioned earlier; that'll easily put me on the mend...

See, it's really the manliness that's the problem. If I didn't have my manly convictions, I wouldn't get all worked up by things. However, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Add this to the stack...

2006-05-05T23:55:00.000-04:00

...of evidence that may be cited in my defense when I say most people are stupid. And by stupid I mean ignorant, undeducated, and often lacking the ability to soundly reason. But mostly debilitatingly ignorant.

I mean, if you don't know basic facts like in China they speak Chinese, not English(!!), what else are you? And if you can't point to Iraq on a map after three years of occupation there... And I bet a lot of the people in the group that can't point to Iraq are against our involvement there too. Because that's clearly a position they've put a lot of time and effort into reasoning through. I want a drink...

I feel a moment of despare the likes of which only John Derbyshire knows coming on... I mean, we let these kind of people vote? It makes me want to go re-read The Politics and start harping on the glories and benefits of Aristocracy (which is, by definition, rule by 'the best'; wouldn't 'best' be the opposite of the impared people that took the survey I linked above--if you don't get who I mean by this, let me make it clear: 'the worst'.)

"We are doomed, doomed" indeed.

Manliness

2006-05-05T16:03:00.000-04:00

So my copy of Harvey Mansfield's new book arrived yesterday. After reading the intro and first chapter rather closely, I have to say that so far it makes a worthy companion to Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. It also seems to be a good primer to deeper thinking than most people engage in, sort of a combination of a Philospophy for Dummies and Straussianism for Dummies. He does seems to be pulling his punches a bit (although not without sacrificing hidden meaning entirely--see below for more on that)

It's also a great book because a Machiavelli-like idiom pervades the book (since Mansfield is a great scholar of Machiavelli, following in Strauss's footsteps [Mansfield's words paraphrased], this makes a lot of sense); there is a lot of delicious irony that won't be noticible if you're not familiar with Mansfield's other opinions in philosophy, or the works of famous authors like Plato, Nietzsche, or Adam Smith, to name only a very few; he even has double-meaning in his endnotes, which means one could really bumble along if one doesn't read (by that I mean really read; I think the double-meaning in the endnotes is kind of funny in a way). Since the book is getting a moderate amount of attention from a non-scholarly audience (a local talk radio host interviewed Mansfield a few weeks back about the book), it'd be amusing to talk about the book with people of that type to see what they took away from the book (I'm guessing the critique of modern feminism and the call for men to be manly again will be what sticks the most).

Also, I just love the title. The word Manliness is a great word that just doesn't get used enough any more. At the very least, it just rolls of the tongue in such a pleasing way. Manliness, heh. Hopefully a lot of men will read the book and be gentlemen, leaders, and philosophers: ie, real men.

Consider this the first Maroonblog book endorsement. Oprah, watch out.

Oh happy day

2006-05-05T15:40:00.000-04:00

An unedited DVD version of Star Wars will be released for Christmas this year. Han will be shooting first. This fact and the resentment of much of the Star Wars fandom towards the Special Edition cut is not lost on Lucasfilms, or at least their swag department.

P.T. Barnum can answer this one...

2006-05-05T15:04:00.000-04:00

So why isn't socialism dead?

Moussaoui's Fitting End?

2006-05-04T12:36:00.000-04:00

Moussaoui, the crackpot terrorist wanna-be who somehow failed at killing himself, once again failed to secure his own demise, being sentenced to 6 life sentences without chance of parole. The trial proceedings had devolved, a la Saddam's kangaroo court, into a serious of ranting Moussaoui diatribes, as he tried desperately to secure a delayed rendezvous with his forty anxious virgins. It was Judge Leonie Binkema who had the last word, and the last laugh, when she triumphantly and forcefully delivered his sentence:

"Mr. Moussaoui, when this proceeding is over, everyone else in this room will leave to see the sun ... hear the birds ... and they can associate with whomever they want," she said. "You will spend the rest of your life in a supermax prison. It's absolutely clear who won."

She said it was only fitting that he will be kept away from outsiders.

"Mr. Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr in a great big bang of glory," she said, "but to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper."

At that point, Moussaoui tried again to interrupt her, but she spoke even louder over him.

"You will never get a chance to speak again and that's an appropriate ending," she added.

Despite the fitting rebuke, I still have to wonder if Justice has been served. Now, of course, my tax dollars will continue to keep this man alive for as long as he can survive maximum security prison (I'm sure even solitary has its share of misguided patriots with hidden shanks). The sad truth, however, is that even if he were sentenced to death, my tax dollars would still be paying to keep him alive for the next decade and a half, as we waited out an absurd number of mandatory appeals, technicalities, delays and possible reprieves. Someone so clearly guilty, if not as clear an embodiment of pure malice and hatred for our very way of life as has come before our system of justice since the DC Sniper, will be forever shut off from society, true, but will he be removed from it? He himself, in the last of his witness stand homilies, declared "America, you lost. I won."

The real injustice is a system of punishment that has lost touch with its purpose as a both penal and reparative system, rather than a social experiment and breeding ground for legal technicality and liberal pet causes. The death penalty, in the end, is no different from a life sentence, when it takes two decades and 2 million dollars to carry out. At some point, the deterrent is lost, the victim forgotten and the criminal faded, and a quiet protest is all that marks the passing of a man who once threatened a whole country. So in some sense, this sentence is perhaps more just, since it dispenses with the gentle process of fading from the limelight, and thrusts the isolation, although not the end, upon Moussaoui without the delay a death sentence would mercifully afford him. Moussaoui is wrong: America won today. But until we reform our criminal justice system, it remains the latest in a series of hollow victories.

The Solution in Sudan: Mercs

2006-05-01T23:05:00.000-04:00

Yep, you read that right; the best way to stop the killing in Darfur is probably 'private security firms', or, more accurately, mercenaries.

Something in me finds mercenaries to be very appealing because they seemed to be, until recently, very anachronous.

4.8%

2006-04-29T16:06:00.000-04:00

The economy rarely ever gets better than it is right now. I wonder if people will soon figure out that they're living in very good times...

What a way to go...

2006-04-25T21:32:00.000-04:00

I may have figured out the best way to liquidate bin Laden when we apprehend him...

The Audience is now Deaf

2006-04-22T20:42:00.000-04:00

The story behind the THX "Deap Note".

A Photo History of Netflix Mailers

2006-04-22T20:04:00.000-04:00

Because of popular demand. I aim to please.

A special kind of hell

2006-04-22T20:01:00.000-04:00

So, I was reading this article on the London Times' website about British attitudes towards intellectualls. In doing so I came upon this gem:

It is no accident that the two most important public intellectuals in America — Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens — are both British.

After I finished choking on my tea (Earl Grey, ironically), I couldn't bring myself to finish reading the article. If the author really thinks that Andrew Sullivan is one of the two most important 'public intellectuals' in the country, why should I trust anything else he writes?

Man, what kind of hell would we all be living in if that statement from the Times was actually true? Clearly, the author of the above piece confused celebrity with importance, and made almost no consideration of substance... To see what I mean, refer to Jonah Goldberg's forthcoming book What the hell happened with Andrew Sullivan.

Mobbing

2006-04-22T19:21:00.000-04:00

This phenomenon sounds a lot like what occurs on grade school playgrounds, or in junior-high and high school social settings. However, the difference is that it is a persecution by very educated people.

I think it'll be quite useful to keep this term and research about it in the back of my mind--being prepared is always prudent.

The Joys of Shaving

2006-04-21T17:55:00.000-04:00

An excellent essay on shaving and more.

Elizabeth II's Birthday

2006-04-21T15:44:00.000-04:00

I like to think that there is much in common between the English-speaking nations of the world (Britain, the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, pseudo-nation Hong Kong, and India). However, at least in the case of Britain, I was slapped in the face with a sentiment that is completely foreign to the American mindset: "Long live the Queen! And long may she reign over us!"

I found that phrase at the end of quite a good article commemorating Elizabeth II's eightieth birthday; however, when I came to it I couldn't help but cringe. Why would I cringe, especially because I really respect the British people's sentiment and loyalty to the Queen? I think the simple answer is that the founding generations of these great United States did a very thorough job in imbibing their new nation with a general distrust and unlove (at the very least) for monarchy and for the words "King" and "Queen" when applied to real political leaders. I have much less of a problem with nobility and aristocracies (although those of the smart and wise are those that I support, not mindless hereditary types), but that's probably just becasue I am generally an elitist (although I do love the common man, I still can't help but feel disgusted at the general ignorance and stupidity of most people--but that's not my point). However, the thought of monarchy just makes me cringe, even now as I write this.

Long live the Anglosphere (and what does that mean?--probably a great fealty to John Locke, at least as interpreted by Allan Bloom), and may it dominate a free world for centuries to come. However, this little phrase reminds me that there are still minor differences--even a powerless Queen in a distant land that should bother me not the least leaves me cringing uncontrollably--between the great inheritors of the Western philisophical tradition. God Bless America--ah, that's so much better.

Now I'll go read the Declaration of Independence to purge myself...

What American can't help but smile and feel noble and uplifted after reading these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I know I can't.

Esprit d'Escalier

2006-04-21T15:24:00.000-04:00

What were Larry Summers' last words on leaving Harvard University? "Kiss me, Harvey".

I laughed histerically at that. Yeah, I'm a geek...

un po' di rispetto, eh?

2006-04-20T16:42:00.000-04:00

From Mr. Nordlinger:

When I need cheering up, I like to think of that glorious moment when Charles de Gaulle told Dean Rusk that he wanted all American troops out of France, pronto. Replied Rusk, "Would that include the ones buried in the military cemeteries, General?" This must be the greatest riposte in American history.

The Brick Testament

2006-04-20T16:22:00.000-04:00

This is awesome...

Check out the Lego version of the last supper especially, heh.

On Geniuses

2006-04-19T16:42:00.001-04:00

They have peccadillos like the rest of us. Here's an amusing example:

Richard Feynman, a Nobel prize-winning physicist who helped develop the atomic bomb and figure out the source of the shuttle Challenger explosion, visited strip clubs nearly daily near his home in California. He mainly worked on lectures and equations there. But for breaks, Feynman would watch the dancers and draw them. His wife, his third marriage by this time, was fine with this.

On Geniuses

2006-04-19T16:42:00.000-04:00

They have peccadillos like the rest of us. Here's an amusing example:

Richard Feynman, a Nobel prize-winning physicist who helped develop the atomic bomb and figure out the source of the shuttle Challenger explosion, visited strip clubs nearly daily near his home in California. He mainly worked on lectures and equations there. But for breaks, Feynman would watch the dancers and draw them. His wife, his third marriage by this time, was fine with this.

It's the gas prices, stupid

2006-04-19T16:32:00.000-04:00

Apparently, Americans determine presidential approval by gas prices, or something that is directly related to gas prices...

You know, the fact that the economy is in such good shape that the stockmarket goes up the day oil goes to eighty bucks a barrel should mean something, but apparently most people just don't get that (I mean, the economy has to be ridiciulously robust to take such a hit in energy prices and to grow at over 4.5%--if oil was low, it'd have to be approaching the best ever in the last several decades...)

I wish I had $500

2006-04-19T10:04:00.000-04:00

And no, not for liquor... This looks much more intoxicating.

Brit Hume's Journey

2006-04-19T10:03:00.000-04:00

The WaPo has posted this article on Brit Hume's political journey to the right. I haven't had a chance to read it yet (it's a bit long and I have class soon), but I thought I'd post it up now so some other might read it (and so I won't forget to read it=)

To Bomb, or Not to Bomb

2006-04-19T09:57:00.000-04:00

You must read this article on Iran.

As has been said before many times by Victor Davis Hansen, the choice is between a lesser evil of blowing the Iranian program to hell now and dealing with the consequences, or doing nothing and courting very possible futures that are much, much worse.

Personally, I'd rather deal with the evil we know now, than with the genocides that could easily occur in the future.

On the Pulitzers

2006-04-19T09:09:00.000-04:00

AKA "Prizes for Excellence in the Compromising of National-Security Secrets".

Happiness and Rationality

2006-04-19T09:07:00.000-04:00

This post on how the brain tends to immitate people that are around you is a must read--it also delves into the well-documented phenomenon that happy people tend to be more rational than those that tend to be angry.

I think, lately, this helps to explain politics a lot. The left tends to be quite angry right now (and hence, often much less thinking and rational--and you know hearing that would just make many lefties more angry). However, many on the right seem to have a positive "the world is not perfect but it's not so bad either" kind of view (now, obviously, there are many, many exceptions to this dichotimy; however, I think overall it stands up well). That's how I approach things. The world is screwed up in a lot of ways (Iran trying to get nukes, for example), but it's also pretty good. But, I know history, so I know things could be worst beyond anything I've every experienced in my life. But, sadly, most people know little or no history...

If JP Morgan were alive...

2006-04-17T17:33:00.000-04:00

An old column from Niall Ferguson that I stumbled across and found interesting...

Wow

2006-04-17T17:32:00.000-04:00

If we were spending 37 percent of GDP on defense spending, we'd be colonizing Mars right now...

Those figures are very handy when someone says that the wars of the last few years have been expensive. In terms of the size of the US economy, they have been remarkably cheap.

I like sovereignty.

2006-04-17T17:30:00.000-04:00

Why don't other people?

Let's cut some taxes

2006-04-17T16:40:00.000-04:00

Here's a list of some taxes that Mr. Murdock argues should be cut to help the GOP in November, as well as the pocketbooks of most Americans Also, an excerpt:

Congress also should terminate the luxury tax on beer. That's right, beer. In 1990, as part of his notorious "Read my lips" tax hike, President G.H.W. Bush doubled the federal excise tax on beer from $9- to $18-per- barrel. While the luxury taxes on furs, yachts, and private airplanes were repealed, the Tax Code still treats beer like champagne. According to the Beer Institute, 44 percent of beer's retail price consists of taxes. As Steve Stanek wrote in the September 2005 Budget & Tax News, "The beer industry estimates the excise tax increase has resulted in the loss of nearly 60,000 jobs in brewing, distributing, retailing, and related industries." Congress should chug a few, then halve this levy back to $9. Better yet, stop taxing beer.

With such votes behind them, Republican lawmakers confidently can face their own base. If not, GOP voters will snooze November 7 and let spineless, spendthrift Republican congressmen confront enraged Democrats — like Christians tossed to the lions.

Only like?

Anyway, I'd really like it if beer dropped in price by a bit, since the ale I like is not cheap (compared to, say, Coors or Bud).

Why Harvey Mansfield is awesome

2006-04-17T16:19:00.000-04:00

Lopez: Are their policy preferences that come with being manly? Can you be for restrictive gun regulations and manly, for instance?

Mansfield: One could be manly and favor gun control. Guns are less manly than swords.

Touche.

Don't you love how the word "manliness" rolls off the tongue?

This delighted me, almost as much as Vodka

2006-04-17T15:31:00.000-04:00

A little ditty on Vodka in Russia:

Etymologically, vodka in Russian means "little water." And because the average Russian guzzles a world-best 5.2 gallons per year, a little water has gone a long way in damaging the collective body politic. A few years ago, the Finnish physician directing the Russian office of the World Health Organization explained: "If you did this in Finland, half the population would be dead in a year. This is clearly not normal."

The rest is as well written, and as funny.

Na zdarovye!

Heh.

2006-04-17T14:53:00.000-04:00

I know this is old, but it's just great. If more liberals were like that, I'd sleep better at night.

Is he or isn't he?

2006-04-16T23:47:00.000-04:00

Is Robert Kagan a Straussian or not? When I read the above linked piece, I get the impression that he's being terribly ironic and is really saying that he is a Straussian. Is that really what he means, or is he just being ironic enough to get someone who thinks people often write esoterically to bite? (This way madness lies...-edI know, I know...!)

Andrew, read Kagan's piece and tell me what you think. So far, every time I run into an opinion of that article, it seems that people (like at Powerline) take Mr. Kagan at his world. However, because of so many seeming hints in the article, it seems that he's being terribly ironic (Allan Bloom putting a cigar out on the hand of a child at a poker game?! He can't be serious about that, which leads me to believe that much of the rest is also ironic. Also, when he says that he never understood a word of Strauss--that seems to be ironic as well...)

Am I crazy, or is he REALLY saying he's a Straussian? That's what I thought when I was being terribly pompous and wrote this post about Kagan's piece. Of course, that very night I had been carefully reading Thoughts on Machiavelli, so I might have just been drunk on Strauss at the time.

UPDATE: If any readers (the few brave souls out there--all 8 of you) care to weigh in, I'd be delighted.

Another UPDATE: Just in case you haven't read Strauss, or didn't really 'get' it when you did, this article here provides a really useful summary of much of Strauss' arguments. And then, of course, you can always go and read Bloom.