Note taking.
It's a truism that the most powerful and resilient works produced by any society always contain within them an element of the popular, of the vulgar.

Easterbrook is one of those guys who never learned to distinguish between "what is true" and "what he believes is true." Ditto for David Brooks. Atrios.

Atrios says in one sentence what the authors of logical/philosophical critiques of conservatism, such as those that appear often enough at Crooked Timber are unable to put forth in volumes. There is no rational defense for the logic of fear and need, and such emotions are the operative forces for most of us, in politics as in life, especially so for social conservatives. David Brooks is not a rational actor, and those who waste disk space pondering the weaknesses in his logic, rather than rebutting him as simply as Atrios does, are acting on assumptions identical to those of the philosophical/economic conservatives with whom Brooks finds common cause. Rationalist arguments against the right, both technocratic and leftist (those of Chomsky and his followers) are as based upon the same flawed reasoning as rationalist arguments of rational economic conservatism.

I haven't read yet Steven Weinberg on Bush's policies regarding space exploration etc. in the NYR, but I'm guessing I'll find it all pretty annoying. I'm betting he'll spend most of the time talking about the relative scientific value of the choices, when to most people the choice is between science and theater.
With my family background in language and law, I prefer theater.

See also this bit of light comedy,
courtesy, again, of A.
---

Anne Carson