More Random Observations
1. I appreciate Carl's observation in the thread below that spirited conservatives should direct their anger and contempt on the Nobel front not at the president but at the selection committee. But in my opinion, the most magnanimous dissing is to show the committee is beneath contempt through silence. I also agree that there shouldn't be a PEACE prize, but a LIBERTY prize, if only because studies show that attempts to keep the peace at the expense of liberty almost always fail. Occasionally, those Nobel people pick someone who knows this well, such as Solzhenitsyn, but not in the appropriate category or for that reason. The president, as some have said, can say what he wants in his acceptance speech, except: It would be most undignified to say anything bad or apologetic about his country or President Bush or to say anything flattering about Europeans or even hint that he craves their love or respect. It would be even classier to say as little as possible about being grateful or deserving the prize.
2. From a review by Rob Jeffrey in the Fall INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW: "Today's professor is often only 'tricky smart'; someday real smartness will come back into fashion."
3. From an article by David Schaefer in the same issue of the IR: "Criticism of judicial activism on behalf of a supposedly 'living' constitution is necessary but not sufficient to remedy these [imperialistic] tendencies [of the Court]. We must also challenge the authority of 'moral theorists' in philosophy departments and law faculties who equip our judges with their sense of supreme righteousness."
2:19 PM / October 13, 2009